Star.
London, England, 1824-12-25 00:00:00

LAW REPORT. .
COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 24.
HENRY FAUNTLEROY.
IN THE. MATTE* OP MARSH, STRACEY, FAUNTLEROT,
AND GRAHAM.
Mr. MONTAGU said,-he held in his hand a Petition
this matter, which stated, that a short time ago an ap-
plication was made to this Court, in consequence of a
proposition which had been made by a creditor, to give
up property to the amount of about 10,0001. provided
it was acceded to without delay, for the purpose of
putting an end to all disputes, and• upon condition that
all letters and papers of the creditors, in the possession
of the bankrupts, should be given up to him; and the
former Petition prayed to have it referred to the Com-
missioners to inquire whether it would be for the benefit
of the estate, that the proposition should be acceded to?
That prayer was granted ; the matter had since been
before the Commissioners, and Mr. Montagu now held
in his hind a certificate from the Commissioners, certit
fying that it was their opinion that the proposal should
be accepted. As for the letters, atc. being returned,
they had read them all over, and in their opinion, it
did not appear from them, that they could assist in
procuring the recovery of any more property ; therefore
they thought they might be given up. Mr. Montagu
further stated, that this was not a cate which came un-
der the Act of Parliament, enacting, that where a com-
position was offered by a creditor, a meeting of all the
creditors must be called, to know whether they would
consent to accept of that composition? but this was a
case in which the creditor consented to meet the whole
of the demand the estate of the bankrupts had against
him. He did hot think it necessat yto mention the cre-
ditor's name.
His LOIMIKIP desired to see the Petition and certificate. They
were handed to his Lordship, and after reading them, his Lordship
asked what was the suns insured by the policy ?
Mr. Mosiemau said £5OO, which was new worth from £6,000
to £7.000.
His Leansmr—But bow will £2,500 be a sufficient satisfaction
for the debt alleged to be due?
Mr. Moorman—My Lord, the policy itself, and the Navy Bills,
which are proposed to be given up, will benefit the estate to the
amount of nearly £lO,OOO.
His Leaosuir—(after a little consideration)—l cannot order
them to de it.
Mr. Moseracu—No, my Lord, we don't ask for your Lordship's
order to that effect; we only take the liberty of asking your Lord-
ship's liberty to accept of the proposal.
His Leonean-10u may be at liberty to accept of it, but I
can't order.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 24.
COULTHREAD V. DAVIS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an apo-
thecary at Lambeth, to recover from the defendant, a
cow-keeper, the sum of 801. the value of a horse sold
under a warranty of soundness by the defendant, and
which was returned as unsound within the time allowed
for trial. The defence set np was, that the horse, when
sold, was perfectly sound, but that the plaintiff had im-
properly treated the animal by administering medicine,
and driving him out the next day, keeping him stand-
ing in the rain at the doors of different patients.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, Sit. 10S.
DARTNALL V. HOWARD AND GIBES.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover-
the sum of 1,4001. of the defendants, which he had
intrusted to them to be invested in annuities on good
and sufficient security. The defendants, in the year
1814 or 1815, advanced this money to Henry Michael
Gould, Esq. for an annuity of 2161. charged upon cer-
tain incumbered estates whiCh he had in Ireland, and
guaranteed by a Mr. Edward Birmingham, styling
himself Lord Athenry, Premier Baron of Ireland. It
was alleged, that at the time of granting that annuity,
the defendants knew that Colonel Gould was in the inlet
of the Fleet Prison, and in circumstances so embarrassed
as to be obliged to apply for the benefit of the Insolvent
Act its the year 1817—that the security of Lord Athenry
was utterly worthless and insufficient—and that no per.'
sons who had not some interested motives to gratify
would have taken the security of either of them for so
considerable a aim. The plaintiff, therefore, contended
that he was entitled to recover this money of the de;
fendants, as he had lost it entirely through their negli-
gence. On the other hand, the defendants maintained,
that they were not liable to the plaintiff, since the estates
were fully equal to the payment of the incumbrances
upon them, and stated as a proof of their ignorance of
Colonel Gould's insolvency, at the time of the purchase
of this annuity, that they had subsequently made eight
half-yearly payments of it to the plaintiff on his account.
There was a great mass of evidence given in support of
the allegations on both sides, and as the case has been
already twice tried, and twice reported in our journal,
and as the evidence of to-day possessed neither novelty
nor interest, we shall merely state, that the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 9331.165.8 d.
THE LING V. MIENS.
When this cause was called on, Mr. SCARLETT, who
appeared for the prosecution, having, without success,
applied to the Court to have it postponed, said, as this
case, from its nature, must occupy much time, and
therefore could not be properly investigated during the
present Sittings, he should withdraw the Record.—The
Record was then withdrawn.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT, DECEMBER sm.
James Taylor came hp to be heard on his Petition to
be discharged. The insolvent had been before the Court
on the 14th instant, when it appeared, that, after he had
presented his Petition to the Court, he had gone out of
the King's Bench Prison, on a day rule, for the purpose
of seeing his wife, who was very ill at Richmond.
Mr. POLLOCK, by whom the prisoner's discharge was
opposed, contended that he was not entitled to be heard
' on that Petition, as the Act of last Session required that
an insolvent should be within the walls of a prison du-
ring the proceedings on his Petition, and in this case
the insolvent had been outside the walls for part of a
day. The case stood over, on this objection, for the
,consideration of the Court.
On the insolvent coming up to-day, the CHIEF Cow-
MISSIONS!' stated his opinion, that the insolvent; having
gone out of the prison during the proceedings on his
Petition, could not be heard on that Petition.
Commissioners Bowan and LAW declared them-
ielves of a contrary opinion, in consequence of which
the insolvent was heard and discharged.

The death of a young lady in Devonshire, in her 18th
year,occurred last week, occasioned by a fright, in con-
sequence of one of her school-mates throwing a spider
at her, which crept down her back.
Frederick the Great asked a soldier, who•bad a deep
cut across his cheek, at a review, At what 4e-house
didst thou get that scratch?" "At Coslin, please your
Majesty, where your Majesty paid the reckoning." The
King was beat at Cosling, in the war of 1756 ; and in
17601 the Russians reduced the suburbs to ashes.