Star.
London, England, 1819-03-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL, FEBRUAIIY 27. •
P9ItTSMOUTII DANK.
The examination of the Bankrupts belonging to the
above firm took place this day, before the lion. EWAN
LAW, and two other Commissioners. SWEET, in'
consequence of Mr. Montague, Counsel to the Assig-
nees, waving his right, put several questions to Mr.
Carter; the principal of which was, whether Mr. C.
was prepared to state, that he had presented the gross
amqnnt of the debts owing.to the firm or Messrs.
Carter, Minchin, and Kelly ?
Mr. Carter said, that all the debts owing and due
Ito all the' partnerships had been presented, but not
distinguished to each; and that Mr. Kelly had be-
come a partner upon the same terms, as all those that
had preceded, not by any special agre-ement.
Mr. MONTAGUE put several questions to the same
effect.

Mr. WILD, in a speech of some length, and with
considerable animation, pressed the bankrupt's dis-
charge, as all the abcounts had been presented.
Mr. MONTAGUE, in reply, wished to abstain from
'ant thing painful, but it was his duty to prevent the
discharge at the present moment, as a loss of 10,0001.
had not been accounted for. Mr. M. stated, -that he
'did not entertain any idea about a fraud ; but it was
a duty he owed his clients, to sift every item to the
bottom. The amount of the debts. was £259.275,1
apd the assets El I7PO : it was a concern of consi-
derable magnitade.
Mr.Nltueutri begged to be sworn; and in a speech
of considerable eloquence and feeling, trusted that
justice would be dealt out, even handed to him; and
that upon his oath, he verily believed the klO,OOO
was an error—it was not a fraud—ar3 he defied any
man in the kingdom to impeach Lis integrity. It
Ivies singular to remark, that previous to this error,
r another one hid also been discovered, which was a
surplus of upwards of £.-000 in 'theirfavour. With
regard to Mr. Kelly, he had t;ot stated truly the
terms on which he entered the Firm.
After several speeches from the Counsel, respecting
the £lO,OOO, the farther examination was adjourned
to the 22d of April ; in order to wade through the
various accounts of seven different partnerships ; and
to place the above sum in a clear point of view. in
order that the Commissioners might pass the Bank-
' tupt, and to do justice to all the Creditors.
Mr.WILD said, that it was an " erne' in the books,
discovered about five years since, by Mr. Carter, on
looking over the accounts, which was attributed in
not canceliiag the old notes, and the bills at various
times sent off to London, and was not viewed by any
person as a fraud.
COURT OF COMMON FLEAS, FER
-TIIOMPSON (qui tarn) V. PARSE, ESQ.
This was an action brought upon the Statute of
tie 22d Geo. 111. to recover £5OO penalty, alleged to
have been forfeited by the defendant,. s Member of
the liotise of Commons, in consequence of having
entered into a contract with the Colonel of the 65th
Regiment of Foot, to supply military clothing for
the present year. The question was, whether an
army Clothier was a contractor with Government
when he contracted with the Colonel of a Regiment
for soldiers clothing; and whether the said contract
disqualified the defendant frdm sitting in Parliament?
Had those points been decided again;[ the defendant,
he would have lost his seat as a Meniber for Devizes,
and been subjected to £5OO penalty.
Mr. Serjeant LAW= now stated to the Jury, that
the defendant, who is an army clothier, had entered
into a contract with General Nicholls to supply the
65th Regiment of Foot. The contract was made on
the 6th of January last, and -on the 21st he took his
seat in the House of Commons. No doubt could be
entertained that he held the said contract ; and the
plaintiff had to contend that Mr. Pearse was incept
citated from being a Member of Parliament: He
could prove the contract, the delivery of the goods,
and .the return of the defendant to the House of
Commons. Unless the Learned Judge was of opinion
that the case did not come within the meaning of the
:Act of Parliament, the plaintiff would be entitled to
a verdict. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
state the prov:sions of the Act, and Contended that,
as it was framed to secure the independence of Par-
liament, and prevent Members from holding, con-
tracts for the public service, it included
an Army ContraCtor.
Mr. berjearrt Lena, on behalf of
contended, that the circumstance of an
contracting with the Colonel of a Regiment
not 1* viewed in the light of a contract with
taunt. This was not, therefore, a case within
templation of .the law.
Tic Lora Chief Justice (Dam's)
that the law upon the subject was is
nonsuited. .

,
.
n main& con- ~. l
.. ranif hint, provided he could succeed (as he never 1
ded the case of
did) in either raising the mosey on the unfortunate
the decendent people made subject whim, or in getting possession
n army clothiers of any of his deposed hrathaegvaisam• Such, Mr.
nu Editor, is in outline the stature of dif wigratiful and
,:egt wimitiasnGot could
done=oh;nous
lemisthe wriseathith theoccasou7Dutillead.COMMindi
theis-
within the coo:. fclundattoo at the digs that they heves* timmetillyMeleteelo—
, I am m•ull assuritthie the litlhar yet gotta the coal jemmise-
Imes phis.me to blame the
„war..s.cil,.„...trilia,„an °Dame cis
'ilfild i: 1°414 *y U. win wo so ynsrshror admire to She
0•••-• "• •'-' c toiiietarbolaiiirusdoos of Lioetesent-Govvreor Rae&
• • toodvetvtliti Meaty, 11119. .. % NUR. CIWII.
f ' •