Star.
London, England, 1801-12-14 00:00:00

COURT OF IMO'S BEECH. DEC zo.

LEWEN FENNEL V. CRAFT, ►ROVISIONAL ASSIGNEE
USDA& THE COMMISSION OF THOMAS FENNEL.

This was an a&ion of Troyer, to re;nver certain
houfehold goods, 7o cards of lace, a quantity of I
duwlas, &c. which had been taken by the Meilen.
ger under a commiffion of Bankruptcy awarded
againft Thomas Fenner, the father, and which.
Lewcn Fenner, the fon, claimed as his property.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL Rated the outlinei of
the cafe is follows :—That the Plaintiff kept a fhop
at Chefkam, in BuckinghanAire, and at Hemel
Hempßead in the fame county, but on account of
family misfortunes, he removed to his father's, at.l
'Well 'Wycombe ; he there continued to carry on
Intfinefs, when a Commitlon of Bankruptcy was
awarded again( his father, and his goods were
feized, together with thole of the Bankrupt. He
harkat that time 7o cards of lace coming from Lon-
don, which he, fearing might alfo fall into the
Came hands, met on the road, and put them into
the cuflody of a neighbour, from whom- the De-
' fendant got them. They even feized his bode and
wearing apparel. He lbould prove thefe goods to
be the property of the Plaintiff, which would en-
title him to a verdiet.

The firll witnefs was Thomas Penner, jun. bro-
ther to the Plaintiff: he laid his brother formerly
kept a (hop at Chefham ; he lived with him as
fhopman in May 1799. In January 1800, he left
Chefharn, and came to live at his father's, at Weft
Wycombe ; he brought his furniture and flock in
trade with him. It was kept feparate from his
father's. About the middle of February it was
removed to a neighbour's haufe. His brother did
not keep open Shop, but he fold lace and !hop
goods on his own account. On the 3oth of April,
when his father's goods were feized, he bad 7o
cards of lace conung from London. He went
with his father to meet the Oxford coach, by
which they came, and they gave them to one
Francis Brown to take care of. This was after
the Meffenger was in poffeffion of his father's pro-
perty. Upon his crofs-examination he prevari-
cated a grcat deal :—he Paid his brother's goods
.were rentoved by night, and over the wall into an
adjoining flied. Many of his father's goods were
alio removed with them. The latter were re-
moved becanfe the !hop wad damp. His brother's
were removed liecatile he and his father quar-
relled, though he admitted that they lived together
iafter the goods were fent away. His father's
goods were removed at different times. He did
I not know that his father was in embarraffed
cir-
cumfances : at laft he confefled that he came
from London late at night, and brought the firs
intelligence to his father that a docket was (truck
againli him.
Jane Fenner, wife to the Bankrupt, and mother
to the laft witnefs, laid, after her fon Lewen left
Chefbam, he came so their houfe ; he brought his
furniture and Shop goods with him :—they were
taken and fold under the Commiftion againll his
father. They were always kept apart from the
goods of her hufhand. Her hufb.mtt laid down
the lace bufinefs foon after bis fon came, who car-
ried it on for his own benefit. While he was
with them he paid them Bs. fd. a week fur his
board. Leven fent his goons away becaufe he
and his father did not agree. The witnefs !wore
the believed that was the only reafon. The huf-
band's bankruptcy was tome time after her km's
goods were removed. Upon her crofs-examina-
tion the contradiiled herfelf, and Shifted to much.
that the Learned Judge told the Attorney General
be mull not expel to proceed, unlefs he produced
other tethmony than there two witaeffes.
Mary Croxford, tenant to Fenner, fen. was
called to prove that the linen was marked L. F.
the initials of the Plaintiff's name. On crofs-exa-
mination the f.til that Mrs. Fenner had given her
a hill of Sale, which the told her was to protect
the goods.
:Aieveral other witaca.,:s were called to (hew a

property in the Plaintiff of the goods fold under'
the commiiTion.
Mary Scott, fervant to Lewen Fenner, raid,
that they left Chefham in Jan. 1800 ; her matter
packed up the goods, they were a cart full, and
were taken to his father's, at 'Weft Wycombe.
Perry, a laceman and broker, was called
to identify the goods, but he raid he could (peak
to nothing but a little deal defk-railing, which he
believed he had feen at Chef ham, in the houfe of
Lewen Fenner.
Francis Brown raid, on the IR of May Lewen
Fenner brought 70 cards of lace to her hook.—
He told her to take care of them for him, and to
fay nothing tiat flie had them. (This appeared
to be the fame lace which came down by the Ox-
ford coach.) Mi. Craft, the Defendant, came the
next day to her houfe and enquired about it, and
(he was at Taft induced to give it up to
When Lewen Fenner underilood the had given it
up, he appeared, like a madman, and Mrs. Fenner !
laid they were ruined.
John Steel, the contlable, proved the finding of
the goods at the houfe of Green, next door to Fen-
nor ; they were in a back flied.
John Denny was called, who Rated that he had
fold a quantity of dowlas to the Plaintiff, in April
laR ; but added, he conceived he was dealing on
account of the father., He (pa 6ce in payment.
It Was alto proved that Lewen Fenner had
bought a bode, and taut it was fold under the
commilLon. , '
Thos. Williams was called to prove the amount
which the goods„fisld for at the tale, which had ,
been pointed out to him as the goods of Lewen'
Fenner—this whim= he Rated at 3531. 13s.
Mr. ERSAINI exerted himfclf greatly in behalf
of the Defendant, and contended that the whole I
was a fraud againft the creditors.
Mr. jutlice Le BLANC, who tried the caufe,
told the Jury, that the only queftion was, to
whom chef' goods belonged ? With refpea to
the two fira witneffes, he thought that they I
could not be credited any fu then than they
were confirmed by circumßances or other tell-
many. His Lordthip then detailed the evidence.
and Rated his opinion,that there wasnot that degree
of proof which might have been adduced lithe pro-
perty was in Lewen Fenner. Thus, the mall from
whom he purchafed the lace ought to have been
there to prove that fad ; and with refpeCt to the
dowlas, the witnefs Paid he thought he was dealing
with the fon on account of the father. There was
certainly proof shat he bought the boric, but the
Jury would confider whether it was not alto on ac-
count of the father. If they thought fo, it ap-
peared to him that all there goods were rightly
feized under the Commilßon againft the father.
The Jury without hefitation gave a verdia in
favour of the Defendant.