Star.
London, England, 1818-07-03 00:00:00

COURT OF CFLt.VCRRT. JILT 3.

eerrartrit 1110ADWOQD IN TUE MATTES OF COUCE•
This was a petition,. in behaif of the plakatirf, for
icreirder to sdperseclt a.commission of bankruptcy,
on the alleged ground that the commission had been
procured by artifice, fraud and collusion. The c.a.!".
as ldiatCal by Sir SAMUEL ROMILLT and Mr. Mom*A.•
utie f-ir the petitioner, was substantially as follows:
Sutde Cooke had purchased of Mr. Broadwood,
who is di musical iastrumerit-maker, a piano-fore,
for which he was to pay £63, giving a reference for
his character to a Mr. Piriknell ; but it was found,
that soon after he pledged the piano-forte at a pawn-
broker's for' £3O. He had taken chambers in the
Temple, representing himself as a law student, and
pretended to be writing a book in defence of his bro--
Otter's claim collie Stafford Peerage. He was, how-
ever,turned out of the Temple chambers, which he
left without paying either the teat or for some con-
siderable damage he bad done to the furniture. He
was likewise in debt to the laundress, and to Mr.
Itichardsan, the keeper of the hotel in Covent-Gar-
den, for wine and viands with which .he had been
supplied. He then went to live with Mr. Owen, the
clerk of Serjeant Copley, who claimed a debt of
£lO2 against him. While living at Owen's, he took
E cook's shop in Golden-lane, which he contrived to
stock with three buttocks of beef. It seemed, how-
ever, that he neglected the business, and the beef
went to decay. lie then turned cheesemonger some
time in November, 1817, and soon after the 24th of
the same month the act of bankruptcy took place,
which the petition of Mr. Broadwood prayed to have
superseded. While Cooke occupied the shop, there
were neither scales nor weights in it, and whenever
the customers bought cheese or butter, the articles
were sent to a shop nn the other side of the street to
be weight. I. Mr. Owen, it appeared, was the peti-
tioning, creditor and was, on the allegation of Mr.
Boadwood, implicated in the fraud and collusion by
which the commission was said to have been ob-
tained. 0,1 the other side it was contended by Mr.
DOWDF.SWELL and Mr. Cuti.ew, that Owen was a
bona gelr creditor, and Suttla Cooke a bona fide trader.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, taking a view of all the
circumstances of the case, thought the commission
WAS obtained in a manner very suspicious. The trade
was carried on in darkness and secrecy, the shop
windows were kept shet, and there was a general ap-
pearance of unfairness, which finally induced him to
grant the,prayer of the petitioner.—Commission su-
perseded.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 2.
HOUSE.-WATERS AND TAYLOR.

Sir SA Nair:. It9mlLLy had to move an order, that
Mr. Waters should pay into Court the sum of 1.:8545.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked Mr. Bart if he had
any thing to state in objection?
:Ncr. I-InaT replied, that he had not received any
instructions.

Sir SAMUEL IIDHILLY observed, that there were no
instructions to be
The VICE-r2LaxceLl.ea stated, that he was only
proceeding on a rule laid down by the Lord Chan-
cellor, namely, to admit those exceptions only which
were not incumbrances.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, the three items on
which the present application was formed, were dis-
tinctly within this rule ; the first was, £6839, and
the other two, conjointly with that, making the sum
of 1.454.5.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said. " Take the Order;"
and it was then agreed between the parties that the
payment should be made within a month.

SIR JAMES TILNEY LONG V. PIIIPPS.

This was a motion by Mr. SPRA towza, for lodging
in the Master's Office certain securities on a personal
estate belonging to the late Sir James Taney Long,
and for the interest on the same being paid to Mr.
Wellesley Pole, as the husband of Miss Long. The
interest, the Learnrd Counsel remarked, was but of
small amount, not above £lOO a year, and he trusted,
his Honour would accede to the motion.

The VIDE-CIIANCELLOR said, " Let the securities
be lodged, and the interest paid to Mr. Pole„ till fur-
ther orders."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY s.
CURREY V. WILLAN.

This action was brought to recover the sum of
0200, as compensation for a less sustained by plain-,
tiff, who had sent a package by the Glasgow mail-,
coach, the property of defendant, which package,
newer arrived at the place to which it was to have
been forwarded. The defendant pleaded that he was
not liable.

Mr. MARRYAT stated the case to the Jury. He
thought the demand of his client was so evidently
just, that he should not detain the Court or the Jury
further than by merely stating such facts as he was
instructed would be proved I:: evidence, and if such
were the case his client was undoubtedly entitled to
a verdict. The plaintiff, Mr. Currey, lived near
ltippon, and, on the 26th of March. M 7, called
osr Afessrs. Britton and Co. banker; there, in order
to have forwarded to London the sum of 0200, and'
for that purpose gave the clerk a check for £195,
and the balance in country notes. The sum of £2OO
was sent from ltippon by the post-boy to Borough-
bridge, where it was given into the custody of Mr.
Stotte, who kept the Crown, at Boroughbridge, and
who was agent to the defendant. He should esta-
blish these facts, and then leave it to the Jury to say
whether the defendant was not fully accountable for
the property.
Mr. Wm. Robinson called.—Said he was clerk to
Messrs. Batton, bankers, at ltippon, near Borough.
bridge. On the 26th of March he made up a pack-
age of notes, to the amount of £2OO, and sent it to
the Glasgow coach, to be forwarded to Messrs. Smith
and White, Blw.lane, London. The order was given
by the plaintiff, Mr. Currey, who gave a check for
135 aail the balance in count. y notes, to make up
the remittance. The notes sent were 160 one-pound
notes, and 20 two-pound notes ; they were made up
in a parcel, and delivered to Mr. Farrer, who said i
they should be forwarded to Boroughbridge, and sent
by the Glasgow .mail-coach.,
On his cross-examination, witness said, that the
Post-master had made some observations as to the
risk which there was in sending note; in that manner.
lie hactiwzild long ago, that there had been a gene-.
/al notice on the part of mail and stage-coach pro..
p..:ctors, that they would not be answerable for any,

packages over E 5 In value; but under what condi-
tions, or who were the parties,he was at a loss to know.
Mr. Farrer, the Post-master at Rippon, was next
called. He recollected having been applied to by
Mr. Robinson, to have a package coaveyed to Bo-
roughbt idge. He forwarded . it, , but on condition
that he should not be accountable for its contents.
Witness had seen an advertisement in the Newspapers,
by which the proprietors of coaches had said, they
would not pay more than the value of £5 for any
parcel lost~ lle never saw such a notice in the coach-
office at Boroughbridge, as he never recollected
have been there; he knew a person who had lost a
trunk or box sent by that coach, and was informed,
that the proprietors had paid no more than E 5 for the
loss, as it had not been specified.
William Studey, the post boy who had taken the
parcel, was next called. He knew the coach-office
at Boroughbridge, and had taken a parcel there
from Mratobinsos; be never saw any notice stuck
up in the coach-office; he gave the parcel to Mr.
Stotte, who keeps the Crown, at Boroughbridge, and
who was agent to the defendant ; he brought back
Mr. Stones receipt ; he had seen a notice relative to
the transfer of packages after the bundle in question
had been missed ; he never told Mr. Szotte Ow he
had seen the notice pasted utn in the office at Borough-
britige.—The case for the plaindX being closed,
Mr. SCARLET? addressed the Court and the Jury
for the defendant. The defendant, he observed, was
entitled to the verdict of the Jury, though lie had II
been disappointed as to the evidence which the last
witness had given relative to the notice. It would be
very severe indeed if bankers or other monied men
were allowed to send their money at a cheap rate
and under cover by the coach, and make the coach-
owners liable to any loss they might sustain by so
doing, when they v.-ere bound in double the postage
of a letter for each note sent by the post. In the
present case the postage of each note would amount
to '22d. which for 181) notes would amount to a very
large sum, instead of the 2s. 6d. which was paid to
the defendant for conveying the parcel, and '2d. book-
ing. If any person wished so to evade the regular
charge, he should certainly be responsible fur the
risk which he ran by so doing. It was an achnin...l
fact, that the defendant had placed a printed notice
in his office at Boroughbridge, stating the terms on
which only he considered himself responsible for the
goods sent by his coach. This notice was as follows:

" Take notice that the Proprietors of this Coach are not ac-
countable for any Bank-notes, Bank-bills, cash, jewels, plate,
watches, or other articles, above the value of XS, or for any
muslins, silks, laces, or other articles above that value, unless
such articles be duly specified, and paid for accordingly over
and above the regular and ordinary charge for any such package
or packages."
The present case was exactly similar to several
others where it was decided in favour of the defen-
dant. Indeed the only one to the contrary was,
where the servant taking the things to the office could
not read, and consequently could not understand any
notice which he might see. He contended, that if
in the present case it could be proved, and it was so
prOved, that one or any of the agents of the plaintiff
knew that such a notice had been given before the
parcel was delivered, then the plaintiff had no claim
to make. It was the same as if a man went to buy
goods at a- shop where it was usual to give two
months credit; in such case, though no bargain had
been made as to credit, yet the general usage was
always understood to be meant. The Learned Coun-
sel here put in the notice, which was read.
Mr. MARRYAT, in reply, contended, that nothing
had been made out on the part of the defendant, and
that the plaintiff was undoubtedly entitled to a ver-
dict. The Learned Counsel shortly replied to the
obhervations of Mr. Scarlett, and concluded by con-
juring the Jury to decide on the case from the facts
laid before them, and by so doing, they would do
justice to both parties.
Mr. Justice Anaor summed up the case to the
Jury, who, after some consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff. Damages, 2001. Costs, 40s.
The plaintiff in this case was, we understand, a
very poor man, whose whole dependence rested on
the sum he was about to forward to London, for
the purpose of meeting a bill which was then near
being due, and which, if he had lost, would' have
been his ruin.

caused suspicion in the minds of the landlord and.
landlady, and having questioned the defendant, and
expressing their disple.,:ore at his bringing a fcma e
to their house, who was not his w'fe--be said she
was, that they were Protestants, but had been mar-
ried by a Roman Catholic Clergyman, and as soon
as she was delivered, they would be again married,
on the day of the christening, by a Clergyman of the
Church of England. She was delivered of a female
child, which was christened in the parish Church of,
Baas—the brother of the defeajam, his uncle, and
a female cousin were present, but the defendant went
out of the way, and did not afterwards return to
Naas ; his excuse was,, that he had busiaess of con-
sequence which required his presence at his fatm; in
some dtys alierwards his brother caliea e:n the un-
fortunate girl, and recommended her to proceed with
him to Dublin, where he would take lodgings for
her, and that his brother, the defendant, would
come to town in a day or two; she accoruinglrcame
to town and brought her infant with hzr, where she
remained upwards of a fortnight, friendless and pen-
flyless. The defendant completely deserted her and
she was obliged to return on foot, with her child in
her arms, to her afflicted and disconsolate mother;
the report of the circumstance having reached the
ears of the Guardian of the T-astitutioa in which her
mother resided, she was turned out of it, and re-
moved from the care of the Church, and the daugh-
ter dismissed as Sextoness.

Judith Murray proved the facts stated.
W. (;RADY stated the defendant's case.
Lord tionsunv charged the Jury, who found a
!rdiut for the plaintiff. Lama.gc.., 501.