Star.
London, England, 1813-08-09 00:00:00

Le" thitz.LIGENCA

tiOURT OF CHANCEItY, Atr=it t.
• .OPERA•HOUSE.
WATERS 17. TAYLOR.
This was a motion made by Mr. Rani-on behalf
If the plaintiff, for an oriel... to have a, day appointed.,
for the hearing of this Cause, pursuant to his Lordi.l
ship's former declaration of hearing it within the pre,- I
sent sitting.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, on behalf of the defendant,
opposed the motion, on the ground of the want of
notice, which was a bar to the present motion, as he
should not consent to the proposition. The Learned
Counsel added, that he had other objectiois to, the
motion, but which it became quite unnecessary to
mention, since the first abjection was eencinsive-
against the application.-r. The motile was refused.
EX-PARTE NYMAN lii run NATTER or YUMAN.
Sir SAMUEL Rourtti stated this to be an, applic-
tion on the part of the bankrupt to have the comcis-
sion of bankrupt sued out against him superseded,
on the ground that be had never committed an act Of•
bankruptcy. The case was extremely short.. .The
petitioner was a stationer at Maidstone, in
,Xent.--p,
His mother lived at Feversham, in the gime county.
Having some debts due to him in his mother's
neighbourhood, and in the circuit from the one place
to the other, he leaves his own house with the double
object of collecting these debts, and, being in a poor
state of health, of paying a visit to his mother, with
whom he remains a few days, and this' is construed
into an act of bankruptcy, being the only one on
which the commission is supported. He submitted
that this. was no act of bankruptcy, and that the
commission must be superseded.
Mr. HART, on the other side, begged his Lord-
ship
to observe, that while the bankrupt was on this
visit. to his mother, his father-in-law entered up judg.
anent upon a bond and warrant of attorney, which
he held of the bankrupt's, and swept away the whole
a the effects. This person, whose name was Wil-
liam Sage, entered up judgment for two sums of
‘BOO and £600; there was a debt of £390, due to the
Crown: and debts to other creditors to the extent of
£2OOO more. At
,a meeting of some of the credi-
tors of the bankrupt, .at the shop of Messrs. Long-
man and Co. Paternoster-rove,
,who were creditors to
a considerable extent, Mr. Longman inquired of the
father-in-law of the bankrupt, who was present, if
he had any, or what proposition to make on behalf
Of his son•in-law ? Sage answered, that he had no-
thing to propose, as the whole of the bankrupt's
effects, which were estimated at abeut;4ls.o6, would
not be sufficient to discharge his jadginent debt, and
the debt due to .the Crdwn. The effects of the bank-
rupt were accordingly sold under the execution at
Sage's instance, and produced .ql4OO, which was
swallowed up in discharge of his judgment debt, and
of the debt to the Crown. The. creditors of the
bankrupt being thus left with nothing but the body of
the bankrupt to satisfy their demands to the amount
of more than £2OOO, felt theinselves fully justified in
the endeavour,' by setting up the present commission,
to defeat the mention of ;lie judgMenicreditor, and
thereby rendering the proceeds of that execution a
fund divisible among the creditors of the bankrupt
in gener.il. In support of the act of bankruptcy,
they were forced to resort to the evidence of two as
unwilling witnesses as could well be conceived,
namely, to the evidence of a young man who had
lived with the bankrupt seven years as his apprentice
and shopman, and to the evidence of the bankrupt's
own mother. The shopman proved that the bank-
rupt left his own shop about twelve o'clock on the
day of the 2tl of December, and came back on the
7th day of the same month in the afternoon. He
went away again on the Bth, and returned on the
day preceding Christmas day. The witness recol-
lected the banker's clerk calling on the morning of
the 2d of December, before Vidian went away, for
payment of a bill which was due that day to Messrs..
Longman and Rees. Vidian said to the clerk he hail
not then any money, but he wasgoing out for money,
and would apply whatever he could' collect in payr.,
rnent of the bill. Thus, then, his Lordship saw the
bankrupt quiiting his house under the pressure of this
bill presented tabim for payment, professing that he
was 'going out with a view of collecting money for
payment of it, and not returning again for five days,
during which time he was on a visit to his mother.—
The shopman admitted that he never recollected his
being absent from home so long at a time, unless
when he went to London on business ; and also
proved, that the execution by gage, the bankrupt's
lather-in-law, was put in on theld December, being
the very day after the bankrupt first quitted his-own
• house. The evidence the mother of the bankrupt
went to this—that ber son was poorly; that he had
gone from home in the way of collecting money; and
ihat'sbe had received a letter from his wife, informing
her that he was coming to see her, and also to collect
money from persons indebted to him in her neigh-
bourhood. She admitted that she had seen and con-
iersed with Sage, the judgment .creditor, in the:in-
terval between the period, of the bankrupt's_ first, quit-
ting and returning to his own house;
,but slepitd
.any.coneert, to her knowledge, hetvieen liim slid "the
bankrupt.
Mr. CULLEN, on the same side, contended that,this
was merely a legal question, which it was for a Jltty
to decide, and that it was not for his Lordship. to an-
persede a commission, in such circumitances.witholat
inquiry. That Vidian was in embarrassed cirotim-
stances • that a demand waslnado on him, op the 2d
December, for payment of bill for a large sum due
that day ; that on that day he quitted his hou6e, with
the professed object of collecting money to pay that
bill, and did not return homeforiffee days; that, on
the day folk:ming that on which he left his house, an
execution was put into it by a favonred creditor, and
that creditor his father-in-law r—thes?, be submitted,
were all circumstances to go to a Jury, and on which
it would be for them to say, whether they did not
afford sufficient proof of an act of bankruptcy ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked, yzhat did the Learn-
ed Counsel who opposed the application conceive was
the object of the bankrupt in leaving his house on the
9d December ? If he bad gone to a greater distance,
and his creditors had been disappointed by his absence,
there *night have been greater force in the interpreta-
tion they put upon his conduct. It was not alleged
that he meant to disappoint his father-in-law's execu-
tion, not then put in. and which his committee an
'act of bankruptcy on the 2d must necessarily have