Star.
London, England, 1827-08-14 00:00:00

IN RE MARSH, PAUNTLZROY AND CO.

Mr. SUODEN stated, that he had to present a petition
in this matter on behalf of the executor of Mr. Amory.
and its prayer was threefold—l sr,that a bond f0r24,0001.
given by Mr. Amory to Messrs. Marsh and Co. might
be cancelled ; 2d, That a debt of 12,0001. claimed
by the assignees might be declared to be satssfie I;
and 3d, That certain title deeds, relating to an estate in
the Island of St. Kitt's, might be delisemed up. These
were all involved in one transaction, which appeared t
be of this nature; Mr. Amory wishing to purchase an
estate in the Island of St. Kitt's, made an application to
Fauntleroy for a loan of 12,0001. to complete a sum of
16,0001. It was agreed that the money should remain
in the banking house until the title was satisfactorily
completed. It was completed, and 12,0001. were en-
tered into Mr. Amory's account in the books of the
banking house, but, in fact, the money never was paid.
The whole was a fictitious transaction, and not a
single farthing went out of the bank. Mr. Fauntleroy,
it was true, had filed a bill against some of the parties,
stating that the 'advance had been made by Exchequer
bills, bat this was afterwards satisfactorily proved to be
luntrue. The bond was given to the bankrupts as an
additional security to the bankrupts, and the title deeds
lodged in their hands. The petitioners therefore, under
these circumstances. prayed that the securities might
be given up, and the debt declared to have been satisfied.

Mr. HNALN and Mr. MONTAGU) on the p.m of the
assignees, did not oppose the petition, but wished it
might be determined out of which estate the sum should
be deducted—the joint or separate estate.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was satisfied that the whole
transaction was fraudulent, as respected the firm and
Mr. Fauntleroy. He wished not, however, to be mis-
understood. He did not mean to say that the fii m
had practised the fraud, but by means of the entry in
the books of the concern the fraud had been committed.
He should, therefore, grant the prayer of the petition
in the terms requested, and give the petitioner the op-
tion of declaring out of which estate the sum should be
deducted.

♦ICE• CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Auo. 13.
HICKSON, IN THE MATTER 01 SMITH.

This was an application to obtain the order of the
Court upon Mr. Alderman Atkins, to oblige him t•-i re-
fund the sum of 81. 6s. Bd. which he had•proved against
the bankrupt's estate, as it was alleged, improperly ; and
also, to discharge the Alderman from his situation as
assignee, upon various allegations of improper conduct.
With reference to the 81. 6s. 83. it was alleged, that the
Alderman had added the name of Hickson to, his own,
to a cheque for the amount. An application had been
previously made by Mr. Alderman Atkins, to be al-
lowed to prove against the bankrupt's estate a debt of
1941. alleged to have been fraudulently charged by the
bankrupt to Hickson, for an Insurance which was never
effected ; and also, to be allowed a reasonable sum for
the services of the petitioner's clerks, in the conduct of
the bankrupt's affairs; the petitioner, Mr. Alderman
Atkins, being one of the assignees of the bankrupt's
estate.

In support of the petition, it was stated. that, Abolish
the present Master of the Rolls, when Vick,Chaukellor,
had objected to an allowance to an assigneOnr the ser-
vices of his clerk, yet that Lord Eldon 44 overruled
his Honour's decision, and had decided that an assignee
was entitled to a reasonable allowance fontuch services.

After Counsel had been heard at considerable length,
The Vice CHatier.r.Lna sail, he was of opinion that
the petitioner's application was too late in paint of time,
and that the petition must be dismissed, with costs.
His HONOUR stopped the Counsel in oppositiOn to the
motion now made, observing that there were no grounds
for the application on the part of Mr. Hickson. He
had carefully examined the cheque, And it did not ap.
pear that there was any ground whatever for the impu-
tation of forgery. He must, therefore, du the same by
this motion as he had done already by Alderman At-
kins's, viz. dismiss it, with cost,:.
Mr. SuODEN said, that, had it not been for the motion
of Mr. Alderman Atkins, the present application would
not have been made.

His Hollows had no doubt that this was in the nature
of a return shot. The time of the Court w4l too much
occupied with applications arising out of mutual beat
,of parties.

11'1111