Star.
London, England, 1822-08-12 00:00:00

LA7 INDELLIGENCE.

VICR-CHANOILLOR'S COURT, AUGUST 9.
EX-PARTE CHELSEA HOSPITAL IN RE ABBOTT.
Mr. HEALD, on behalf of the petitioner, Sir Charles
Long, Treasurer of Chelsea Hospital, applied to the
Court to allow the Sub-treasurer cf the Hospital to
prove a debt, under the Bankrupt Commission of Ab-
bott, to set aside the assignees chosen under that
Commission. The Learned Counsel stated that the
Commissioners, as he conceived, had unjustifiably re-
jected the proof of the Sub-treasurer, and cited the
Act 24 Geo. 111. commonly called the Prize Act, to
shew the power of the Sub-treasurer to prove under
the Commission. The Act distinctly authorized per-
sons appointed by the Treasurer to do all matters and
things contained in that Act.
Mr. BELL, who was_ on the other side, contended
that the clause in the Act cited, related to persons
specially appointed by the Act. The Sub-treasurer.was
an officer performing his duties previous to this Act.
The COVET concurred in this suggestion. As to the
clarice of assignees, the Court never interfered except-
ing in extreme cases, where Commissioners had acted
with a dishonest intention, or where such an error had
been committed by them, as to exclude nine-tenths
of the bona fide creditors. In this peculiar instaace,
the Commissioners had acted properly in rejecting
the proof of the Sub-treasurer.
Mr. HEALD proceeded to argue the case in supe
port of the petitioner. He thought he could shew the
Court the necessity of ordering fresh assignees to be
appointed. The assignees, it would be found, were
not competent to undertake the duties which were.
imposed upon them.'
The Cover would be happy to hear any case cited
in which that principle had been acted upon. At pre-
sent, it seemed that the Court could go no further.
Mr. H EA L D apprehended, that in this peculiar case,
the Court would consider the public interest, and act,
even if no precise precedent could be found. This,
the Court would recollect, was an application on be-
half of a great body, and both Greenwich Hospital
and Chelsea Hospital had consented. The assignees
now appointed had no knowledge whatever of prize
business, and this was absolutely requisite in con-
ducting such important concerns. One of them was
an auctioneer, a very good sort of man no doubt,
avid knew well enough how to knock down an estate
by the hammer, but was wholly ignorant of prize
business. He thought, therefore, the Court would
here deviate from its usual course. .

The COURT said it would not deviate one inch
from its usual course.

Mr. HEALD would not trouble h is Honour any
further with the Petition.

Mr. 13eu, ob erved, that in fact there was no prize
business for the assignees to decide upon, excepting
the matter now before the Court. • •
The COURT said, that even if there were prize bu•'
sines>, that did not form a part of the prayer of the
Petitioners. It was not averred that the assignees
were incompetent to discharge the duties. In none
but extreme cases had the Court acted, in appointing
fresh assignees . ,
M. l-lEALD thought the Court might order the
Treasurer to prove under the commission.
Mr. liEu. said that such an order would•be unne-
cessary, as the Act before cited gave the Treasurer a
power to prove, in the same manner as individuals.
The'CounT thought that in case it could be shewn
that the assignees were so grossly ignorant as to be
wholly incempetent to undertake. the. task imposed.
upon them, it would be the duty of the Treasurer of
Chelsea Hospital to -present a Petition to the Court,.
stating the fact. In that
.case, the Court- might be
induced to act. As the matter now stood, the Peti-
tion must be dismissed without costs.