Star.
London, England, 1822-06-11 00:00:00

.

-wn

• LAW jNTELLIGENCE.,

• COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNI 10.
THE WO V. JACKSON AND. OTHERS.
This was an indictment against George Jackson
the elder, George Jackson the younger, and Henry
Jervis, for a conspiracy to issue a concerted com-
mission of bankrupt aglinst George Jackson the
younger, in order to defeat the debt of Mr. Fox, who
had obtained judgment in an action against him, and
also to enable George Jackson the elder to prove a
pretended debt of MOH. It appeared on the trial
before the Lord Chief Justice, several months ago,
at Westminster, that after Mr. Fox had obtained the
judgment in question, a commission
of bankrupt
Issued against the younger Jackson, who had
.com-
menced business as an apothecary, on the prpon of
his father; who appeared before the Commissioners,
and was admitted to prove a debt of 0,044, which
he claimed to be due from his son to him for sums
advanced on his behalf for his education, for an ap-
vrentice-fee to a surgeon, for they expense of walking
the hospitals, and for money lent to-facilitate his en-
trance into practice; for none of which he had any
security, except £4OO advanced.. just when his son
became of age, and for which he held a bond. The
younger Jackson had an estate in his own right,
which yielded about £4O a-year, and which he set-
' tied upon the daughter of Jervis, whom he married.
It was sworn that Jervis and George Jackson had
been in some measure active about the bankruptcy,
and that the former, in a letter addressed to Fox,
threatened that if he proceeded to hostile measures
against young Jackson, he should know what to do.
On this evidence the Jury found the defendants
guilty. In a former Term the Solicitor-General ob-
tained a Rule to strew cause why a new trial should
not be granted, on the ground that the verdict was
against evidence; and that, since the trial, the inden-
ture on which the father had paid an-apprentice-fee
of £262, had been obtained, and might have led the
Jury to a different conclusion. .
Against this Rule Messrs. SCARLET? and MAR-
MATT now sheaved cause. They argued, that if such
a debt as that proved by Jackson the elder could be
admitted, there was no father in existence who might
not make a similar claim against his son. The very
circumstance of the bond being taken for the last
£4OO advanced, and for that only, was a proof that
the father did not then intend to claim of his son the
debt to which he afterwards swore ; since, if he held
him liable for those advances, why did he not then
obtain security large enough to cover them ? Sup-
posing an action had been brought by the father
against the son for money lent, would any Jury,
der these circumstances, have supported his right to,
recover ? The mere payment of the apprentice-fee
was really immaterial, since it formed so ipatt
of the claim. Here were the parties evidently in Con-.
sett, Jervis threatening proceedings, and proceedings
following the threat, . and the Jury were fully war-
ranted in the inference they had drawn. It would
defeat the whole policy of the Bankrupt Laws, if they
were thus made the engines, not of .anequal distribu-
tion of the effects of an insolvent, but of defeating
the claim of an individual creditor.
It appeared, from answers given to questions put
by the Court, that Mr. lox bad filed a bill in Chan-
cery to supersede the commission, to which the de-
fenclantsliad put in their answer, and on which no
step had been taken for two years. A previous in-
dictment for conspiracy against the same partiei, and
an indictment for, peijury against Jackson the younger,
had also been preferred, but had been withdrawn on
the discovery of a technical error.
The Judges consulted together for some time,
after which
The LORD CHIEF Jusricc said, that it appeared to
the Court that the ends of ju.tice would be more
satisfactorily answered by submitting the case to the
consideration of another Jury. There were, undoubt-
edly, circumstances of strong suspicion ; but, on the
other band, the conduct of the father in giving on
two occasions before the Commissioners a detail al
the items of his claim, was -much in his favour. If it
was extraordinary that a father s'...ould hold a sore'
liable for education and advances, it must be remem-
bered that, in this case, the son had an estate of his
own, which might alter the view with which a father
advanced money to introduce him into an expensive
profession. It seemed fitting that these observations,
with others which might occur, should be urged to a
second Jury, who might give them all the weight to
which they were entitled. The Rule. for a new trial
must, thei,:fore, be made absolute.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JUNE to.
Josel:h Correa, late Minister Plenipotentiary. from
the Cow t of Portugal to the Haase Towns, catne.up
for final hearing. The iniolvM. had been remanded
at a former examination, in order to obtain an ac-
count of goods in the possession'of his son, at Ham-
burgh. of his Court-dresses, &c. The accounts were
this day produced, properly verified by the affidavit
of J. Correa, jun. Esq. who holds the office of Charge
d'Affaires at Hamburgh, from the Court of Portugal.
The Court were satisfied with the account, and ob-
served, that although Mr. Correa had been opposed
by one of his creditors for contracting a debt without
probable means of paymeut, yet he was happy to
state that the Gentleman would depart from that
Court to the exercise of his important funCtions with-
out even
.the shadow of a stain on his reputation.—
The insolvent was discharged.

Sittings appointed to be held in Middlesex and
London, before the lett Hon. Sir CHARLES ABBOTT,
Knt. Lord Chief Just►ce of the Court of King's Bench,
in and after Trinity Term, 1522