Star.
London, England, 1827-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY. Nov. 23.
WILLIS AND BLACK.

This was an appeal from a decision of the late Vice-
Chancellor (air John Leach). It arose upon the effect of
a covenant contained in a marriage settlement made on
the tnarriageof Miss Black with Mr. Formby. The Rev.
Mr. Black, the Lady's father, by the covenant in clues.
lion, undertook that if he did not by will or otherwise
provide to a cetain extent for his daughter, then that
his representatives should pay out of his estate a sum
equal to such portion as his youngest daughter might
be entitled to. The question was, out of what part of
the property of Mr. Black, and to what amount, the
executors should satisfy the claim of the married
daughter, the terms of the covenant and the circum-
stances of the property having combined to render the
construction extremely difficult and ambiguous.
After Counsel had been heard, the LORD CHANCEL.
Loa said he would consider the case, and give his judg-
ment upon it in the course of a few days.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 23.

EX-PARTS DAWNON IN THE KAFTAN OF N ENTWORTH, A

EAN[RUPT.

This case occupied nearly the whole day in arg.,-
meat. It had been several times before tie Court in
various shapes, and derived considerable interest from
its connection with the affairs 9f Messrs. Wentworth,
the bankers, of Yorkshire. The present application was
upon petition by the assigne,.s of Messrs. Wentworth,
to stay the certificate of Mr. Rushworth, one of the
partners.
Mr. Hopei appeared upon the petition as Counsel
for the assignees. Ile stated, that the circumstance
which had induced his clients to come forward upon
the present occasion was, the discovery of certain fact.
connec:ed with the conduct of Mr. Rushworth, in the
partnership concerns. The petition stated, that on the
21st of December, 1825, the Commission of Bankruptcy
was issued a,zainst the firm of Wentworth and Co. On
the Bth of Febru.sty, 1826, the assignees were A poonted,
and on tl e 13th. of March, in the same year, the de-
fendant, Mr. Rushworth, passed his last examination,
and the petitioners fthe assignees under the commission)
signed his certificate. They now prayed, however, that
his certificate might not be granted by the Court, until
he had given further explanation upon cart sin points
which had come to their knowledg. since March 1826-
Ode of the points referred to by the petitioners relao,d
to certain dealings in turn privately cam d on by the
banks upt with Messrs. Exley and Dims-tale, bah be-
tore and after the bankruptcy ; nor had thts.ract.come
to the knowledge of the assignees till Oct her, 1826.
Now, observed the Learned Counsel, the object of the
Bankrupt Law, was the distribution of .he entire estate
amongst all the creditors; and it a bankrupt should
carry on any trade during the commission unknown to
his assignees, the Great S; al would not be warranted,,
in the spirit of the Bankrupt Laws, to allow him his
certificate. The next allegation of the petition was,
that, in the ledger of the firm kept at Wakefield, under
the account headed 6, John Exley," there were several
erasuret and fresh eats ies, aril several items trans-
ferred to the private account of the b -nkr upt ; and these
alterations were chiefly made in the handwriting of
the bankrupt. The petition also sta ed, that the bank-
rupt Rushworth had abstracted Bank of England
nutes from the coffers of the film, and substituted the
liabilities of the house instead of them. It was, lode ed.
-aid in the answer that ti e defendant had refunded and
,made restitution of the monies thus taken; hut how,
observed the Learned Counsel, came a bankrupt to be
so flush of moi.ey ? There was an() her rema,kable fact
stated in the petition, narisely,.that thedeteinfaiii kept
a private cast, book; and when the assignees came to
the knowledge o: this fact. and required the de riot:lnt to
deliver ti e b, k into their hands, the defendant, went
away to fetc:t it, ap, li, d himself to mutilates veral parts
of it, and entirely t te on several pages. Ot this fact
they wet e i.,tsn n.ed firs: in October,lB26.by Mr. Patrick,
the accomptant. Defendant, upon being interrogated,
gave up a part of the leases, and admitted that he had
tom them out during his absence. The petition els-
•tated that the defendant had received divers sums of
money from the partnership concern; amounting t.
1.7621. of which h- had fliven.no further account t,.an
that lie had disbursed it so his own priv*Le concerns;
that about the rime of the issuing of the commission,
he defendant said that he had burned several thousand
notes of the film, and that the peti looms, in the absence
of all explanation, did not know that these n vies h.d
not been re-issued The Learned Counsel contended,
that if these facts were est .blished to the satisfaction of
the Court, it was impossible tlit defenden: should have
his certificate. His Honour well knew that "vet y bank-
rupt was bound, ever alter he had his cettificate, to
assist and co-operate n the settlement of the accounts;
but if a bankrupt coul.t behave in this w,y before he
obteined hi; certificate, what security could there be
that he would give his assistai.c.- at ei wards? He could
not imagine any c nduct mote objectionable than the
abstractian and mutilation of books, and the destruction
of property impu ei to this bankrupt. And the peti-
tioners, who had ri ived debts to the amount of 2.5,0001.
and were Also tie cle,endant's assignees, swore that they
were unacquainted with all these particulars, with the
exception of the horning of tl.e notes, until after the
final examin tit it of the defendant.

Mr. GELDART (oiowrd on abet same side.

Mr. Rosa, for the defendant, s he would challenge
the experience ot his i.e .rned Fr end (Mr. Hume) to say
whether any thing snort of actual fraud, under a bank.
ruptcy, won d entitle any given number of assignees to
apply to the Court to stay the certificate of a b inkinpt,
until he had explain d his conduct? Thb late Liird
Chancellor always asked, wh-n a coeditor challenged
the certificate of a bank, opt. what influence his debt
had in the concern? Now, after deducting the debt of
these pen:ioners, the defendant was left emineniiy en-
titled, by value and norneers to his certificate. It was
sworn in the answer of the defendant, chat this proceed.
ing originate.: in angry feelings, and the present petition
would, in ail prabability, never have been presented, if
the bankrupt, it he might be allowed the expression,
had been,a little more " cap la hand." .
Mr. Hottits.—Cash in hand, you mean—(A lames).
Mr. Rose was willing to take it as put by his Learned
Friend, who knew more of his own clients than be (Mr.
Rose) probably did. He (Mr. Rose) contended, that if
every part of the petition were true, there would be no
ground for such an application as the present. If the
facts charged upon Mr. Rushworth took place before
the bankruptcy, then, as they all knew, they formed no
ground for this application; if after, then, a fortiori,
'they made no such ground. In no part of the petition
was fraud imputed. The first allegation had reference
to certain dealings in corn : but a man had a tight to
trade after his bankruptcy for the support of his family ;
nor was he bound to communicate the fact to his
assignees. If he had refused to answer questions
when before the Commissioners, they might have
committed him to prison; but, as these dealings were
public and known to the assignees, aad they neglect

ed to ask questions at the proper flues it was rather
too bad to found an application to that Court upon
their pretended care for the intete,ts of the creditors.—
The next allegation was with re erence to the erasures.
Now, no charge could be conceived in terms of mire
general imp-rt than this. But it was not necessary for
bins to troub.e the Court with observations on th it
charge, as the petition did not venture to assert that the
state had suffered by the alleged erasures. The next
charge was, that he had abstracted money from the
coffers. Rut what was the whole amount of it ? That
the bankrupt had taken away money in one form and
replaced it by money in another form, and at a time
when he thought, as every one else did, that the
house was able to answer all demands upon it. It
was, however, unnecessary to go into this, as the assig-
nees hid given the defendant a receipt for the amount
upon his settling it. The next point was, the private ,
cash book ; and,with respect to this, he had to observe,
that it had been duly exhibited to the C immissiorters,
and the bankrupt might have been examined concern-
ing its contents. Tne leaves torn out had reference to
an account of a person of the name of Nicholson, who
was a bankrupt in 1821, and to whom Mr. Rushwoith
had been assignee. As to the 7621. which had been taken
out of the partnership fund, to that sum the bankrupt
was entitled, and he had applied it to the most honour-
ab•e purposes, by paying his tradesmen's debts. He did
not think it necessary to notice the latter part of the pe•
tom, relating to the burning of notei, fut therthan to say
it appeared upon affidavit, that it was the custom with
all tounti r hankers to burn their notes, and that it was
nil Imputed that the estate had been injured by it in
this CA e. The Learned Counsel, in conclusion, read
the affidavits of John •Harrison and John Taylor, in ea
planation of the allegations of the petition, In the later
:Ad aft, it was stated, that the alterations in the book,
we e made mostly by his hand, and merely in the cot•
[cell n of errors in posting.
Mr. SPURRIER followed on the same side.

Mr. lloitNa replied.
The Vice o.w:wet-Lon said, he was glad this case
had been brought forward at last, b,•cause it gave him
at, opp Artun.ty of again reading the affidavit of Mt.
Itushworth, which, it appeared to himosttled the whole
matter. It any facts had remained unanswered or in-
voile,i in suspicion, by that affidavit it would have been
his duty to stay the certificate. But he was bound to re-
gard it as a complete answer. The petition began by
imputing fraud in the alterations of the account opened
in the books under the head of Exley and Co.but it turned
ou that the alterations made were merely to correct
error: nor did it appear, as stated, that the dealings
with those parties did nit appear openly and in the
partnership books. With respect to the money received
by Mr. Rushworth, improperly, as was alleged, he de
clared that he had received it from the hands of Car-
ter,the chief cashier ; and he further explained what
he did with it, and it did not appear that he
ever refused to explain. This fact was not contradicted
by the other side ; and he (the Vice Chancellor) could
not shut his eyes to the fact that these things seemed to.
have been forgotten by Patrick, the accountant, and the
assignees. With respect to the private cash book, it
appeared that the leaves torn out of it had reference to
the bankrupts private account, and it had been in the
possession of the commkssioners. With regard to the
other transactions alluded to, there did not appear to
be any reason to attacfr the character of fluid to any of
them. He should cot go into the question of the burned
notes, for although that fict appeared to have been
introduced to excite suspicion, it had b withdrawn
so tar as the Court had any thing to do with et. I
certainly appeared to him that the petition ought to be
dismissed. But it would not be right to vi,it Mr. Rush-
worth with-the costs; and as he was bound to suppose
that the petitioners had acted in this matter for the
benefit of the estate, he must allow them to be paid
the costs out of the estate.
Petition dismissed wi h costs.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 45.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

The ATTORNEY GX;OaAl7;;;;Sicr;a Rule to ;hew
cause why. a criminal . information should not be filed
rgainst William Arundel Harris Arundel E q. one of
•he Justices of the Peace for the county of lXvon. The
Learned Gentleman stated, that it appeared from the
affidavits, if the affidavits were true, that the Magistrate
against whom he now sought to obtain the Rule bad
yet to learn to make himself competent to discharge his
duty, and to administer the laws as a Justice of the
Peace. It appeared that Mr. Arundel resided near the
village of Litton, where also resided two or three per-
' suns against whom helps! openly declared the greatest
hostility. On the 6th September last, a person of the
name of Thomas Emery, who was a carter in a small
way of business, was delivering a cart load of barley on
the premises of Mr. Robert Palmer, a maltster, who
lived at the same place, and whose malt•house was op-
posite the Bell Inn of which he was the proprietor.—
' After Emery had delis ered the barley, he put his cart
on one side of the road, and close up to the stable wail,
' until he had received back the empty sacks. There was
the evidence of several witnesses to chew that abundant
room remained between the cart and the opposite wall.
Whilst he was thus employed, Mr. Arni del came by in his
gig, and perceiving the cart, which was undoubtedly in
the highway, he told Emery that he- would fine him
110 s. Emery said, " I hope you will not," and Mr.
Arundel replied that he would ; when Mr. Palmer came
nut, and said, as Emery was a poor man, and had a
large family, he hoped Mr. Arundel would not fine
him. Mr. Arundel repeated that he would, and that
Emery had no business to have his cart there. Mr.
Palmer then explained, that Emery wls waiting to re-
, cerve back his empty bags, and asked it the law did not
allow him sufficient reasonable time so to do? Mr.
Arundel said, he would not be taught the law by him,
and would fine Emery 20s. and commit him to jail if
the money were not immediately paid. Emery said he
was a poor man, and lived a long way off, and had not the
money; on which Mr. Arundel directed a constable to
,be called, and subsequently placed him in the custody
of a man named Benjamin Chubb, directing him to be
kept in custody, and to be brought to Lifton Park, if the
'fine was not paid. In the meantime Mr. Palmer, who, it
appears, was a person possessing some property in Lit-
ton, and the o A ner of two inns and a malt house, set oat
for Launceston, in order to ascertain whether or not the
Magistrate was justified in fining the poor man ? On his
way he met the attorney, and returned to Litton with
bins. In the meantime the constable had removed the cart
and horses, and taken Emery away. Mr. Arundel was
driving back, and saw Palmer, the attorney, and some
other persons, conversing together. He said to Palmer,
" 1 suppose you have been to Launceston to see whether
I could fine the man?" Palmer replied that he had.
At three o'clock Emery was brought before Mr. Arun.
del, at Lifton Park, when he was told that be must pay
the fine. Emery said, if he were allowed to go home,
he would get the money and pay it; but he was in-
formed by Mr. Arundel, that if he did not pay the fine
before five o'clock that day, he would send him to the
tread-mill for a month, and ordered the constable to
bring him back at that time. In the meanwhile the