Star.
London, England, 1805-08-23 00:00:00

SIC PUTS Lllllll.

This was an application for fuperfeding the coin-
mitfion of bankrupt taken out againtt the petitioner,
and for having the bond for tool. granted by the pe-
titioning creditor at the time of taking out the corn-
milfion affigned over to the petitioner, as an indemni-
fication to him for the loft fullained in having a corn-
miffion of bankrupt erroneou fly awarded againft him.
The petitioning creditor, of the name of M'Pherfon,
it appeared, had formerly been a partner of the bank.
rupt's. On their dill-nixing partnerthip, M'Pherfon
undertook to indemnify Lane of the company debts,
and Lane, on the other hand, engaged to pay him
vol. in yearly paymentsof tool. Lane wasalfo debtor
to M'Pherfon in a bill for 3701. and about the time it be-
came due, not being provided for it he took a journey to
Manchefter, and other manufacturing places, for the
fake of railing the money to anfwer M'Pherfon's
claim. He at the fame time informed M'Pherfon of
his journey, and of the object of it, and wrote to him
more than once during the period of his abfence.— '
M'Pherfon, however, being irritated by the difappoint-
ments he had experienced, and interpreting Lane's
abfence into an ad of bankruptcy, having previoufly
called at hisfather's houfe, and learned that he (Lane)
was returned, and having alCo taken the opinion of
Counfel, took out a commiffion againft him.
Malice, which it was neceftary to thew to warrant
the prayer for having the bond aligned, Mr. RoMILLY
for the Petitioner argued, was apparent from the
whole features of the cafe ; and particularly manifcf-
ted itfelf,in an interetted obfervatinn which fell from
M'Pherfon, when he called at the Petitioner's father's
—that he was refolved to have him in the Gazette,
and to get rid of him at once, not to allow him to
bang about his fhoulders for five years.
Mr. FonsLANCWS for Mr. M'Pherfon on the other
hand argued, that his client might have laboured under
an error, but his conduit had not been charafteriled by
malice, without proof of which, although the commit--
fion might be fupe rfecled, to which he had no objection,
no order for an aifignment of the bond could be made.
The Loan CH ANCILLoa laid he would go too far
were he not to declare that this cafe exhibited features
warranting a fufpicion of malice. He felt himielf,
however, placed here as a juryman, bound to ad on
proof alone, not on fufpicion. His judgment, if he
ordered the bond to be affigned, was conclufive, and
be the lots fuftained by the Petitioner great or (mall,
nothing mare or lefi. than the tool in the bond could
be given. Being therefore in ignorance of the mo•
tive by which the petitioning creditor was aauated,
and being equally unable to judge of the damage fuf-
tained by the prefcat Petitioner, he eituld do only one
of three things—he should order an Km to be tried,
bow far the petitioner had been damnified—fhould
refer to the Matter to inquire into the expellees incur
I red by the Petitioner—or fhould fuperfede the commit--
fion with colts, and with the colts of the prefent ap-
plication, referring to the Petitioner to apply for in-
demnification in a Court of Law, where a jury would
be far better qualified than he to judge of the gusto-
tom of damages the Petitioner was entitled to recover.
Mr. ROMILLY preferred the 101 of the three alter-
natives,which the Loan CHANCE tame was according-
ly pleafed to order.