Star.
London, England, 1817-08-21 00:00:00

L\TELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AULUST so.
ont4A-Houris.

WATER:, W. TATUM

Mr. HART tlionyht there could be no objection to
the tun possession ut the property lring given to Mr.
Waters, on the money being paid by him into Court.
The L nu CHASCrl.Lrit.—Certainly, I can sew
none. Let l,sm thentore have possession without
prejudice . and on c,,nd:tion that he quit, should
the Cent c,use to miler him to do so.'
Sir SAMUEL It.,SIILLY stated the bardshi? that

.tenisid be on Mr. Tayaw, by Mr. Waters de.iutting
17:e allll4,ilDi of Ow mortgage which Taylor had paid
into I.
The Loitu CllAKULLLott.—Stale to me the nature
of drib mortg►►gr, or wl►at you 'man me to do in
t!.e care.
Sir S. Roattuor..—The nature of the mortgage 1
saiderstAnJ t•► be this. There is 4'3,600 due (in a

wiortg 4ge, and which has accumulated to 45.931,
by interest. This sum is due to Mr. Waters es exe-
cutor 4 the late Mr Gould, and it is included Among
the other claims which Mr. Waters alledges fie has a
I;glit to deduct. and to pay only the residue. I
think that tin, amount of the tourtgao should be
allowed to Mr. Taylor.
Leda) CIIANCLI.LOW —Let me see that I under-
stand you. Its the amount 01 claims this rigi.6uU is
included. is it not ?
Sir S. Itomit.t.v—Precisely. my Lord. and it is
thus I complain that Mr. Waters has a duubk secu-
rity in his own hands.
Mr. Miu.s (Solicitor for Mr. Waters) then enter.
ed into a general description of the funds. and con-
tended. that by the order of yl smithy. Mr. Waters
/oust have paid it34,0U0 into Court, instead of
&ISM*.

The Limo Cuawomint—What do you mean when
you speak of a geoeral fund I
Mr. Mats said, the general fund was the whole
*mount of the property of both parties in the Opera-
House, including, as that property dors, the 7-16ths
of Mr. Waters, and the 9.l6ths of Mr. Ta)lor.
The Lotto CHANCILLOKNow we have got a de-
finition of the general loud, but 1 confess I have no
more understanding of the statement you have now
given.me than that mace before me has. There is
obviously a mistake between you in your statements,
as Mr. Duthie says the amount of the claims includes
the .t 3 600, %%bile you say the contrary.
Mr. MILLs state, that the calculation he had made
was by deducing Mr. Waters' mortgage from the
general food which he had described before.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, after hearing some ex-
tracts from the Report, which were read by Mr.
Duthie (the Solicitor for Mr. Taylor), observed,
that he ,hould w.sh to know whether any thing fur-
tirer could i.e said, and whether the parties agreed
tq the corrections made in the Report? which he ob.
s:rved was a very voluminous one. On being an-
swered that they were sati.fitsl, his Lordship stated,
that he would take home the Report with. him, and
Peed it over that evrning, and would give judgment
some future day. He wished, however, to be fur-
nished with the statement alluded to this day.
Sir S. RoeczLt.t►eomplained that Mr. Waters should
be allowed double seem icy, by having the mortgage
in los hands.
The Loan Citatccesoon—lf that be the fact then,
the consequence from it is very clear, but go on in
the mean time paying the money. I must say, that
really this is one of the worst dvetr lever heard to my
',fr.—Further heath* postponed.

TMURGAIR V. THS CidiIMOSIONAAS Of TUi TRAWSPOItT

Ht) A RD.

Mr. MAR, in this instance, applied to his Lord-
ship in behalf of the Plaintiff, praying the Court to
compel the Commissioners of the Transport Board to
pay the bow of 46,000, which in their answer they
admitted to be due to the Plaintiff and other persons,
owners of the ship Morley, and which was doe for
freight. He-contended, that with such an admission
there could be no obstacle in the way of this order
being granted.
The Souctron-Gmeam, appeared for the Com-
missioners, and admitted that they had acknowledged
• the debt to be due, but it did not thereby follow that
the Commissioners were personally liable for it. The

Board was now dissolved, and the business trans-
ferred to the Navy Board, to which place also, as a
matter of course, all contracts and agreements made
by the Commissioners of the Transport Board were
consigned. It was necessary, therefore, in this case,
that a supplemental Bill shoul.i be filed for bringing
the proper panics before the Court, but no personal
liability er uld, on any pretest whatever, be charged
against the Commissioners. This was a point in it.
self so obvious, that he should not say one syllable
on it, for in the Charter-Party of the ship, not one
word was said about it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I can make AO such or-
der, nor sh :11 1. for I don't see how the Commis.
sioners can be liable personally for the debt. Go to
the Navy Office and be paid, but don't let me
be troubled again with this motion.
ax-PARTS DITT/Iti JO VIM MATTER OF MOLUtz.
This petition occupied the Court for a great pan
of three days.
Sir SAMUEL ROMMLY, Mr. Coax, and Mr. Roe.
rem., were heard for the Petitioner on Monday p
Mr. HAUT, Mr. BM., and Mr. Mortramue, yester-
day, for the Assignees y and Sir SAMUEL ROMILLT
in reply this morning.
This petitioner is a broker, but some time previous
t.) 1815, be was in partnership with the bankrupt Mo.
line in the sale of bides. In January, 1815, Moline
committed the act of bankruptcy. Dyster soon af-
terwards applied to the Court of Chancety•to be al-
lowed to call in the outstanding debts of the partner
ullip," and to rank with the other creditors of the
bank opt estate. From this an issue arose, .vhether
the partnership bad been secret? It was tried in the
tietve Bedell, and decided not to have been a secret
partienhip. It had been dissolved in • November,
- • alas A second issue as to separate account; be-
tween else parties was granted, but not proceeded in.
The present application was for the costs in those
proceedings, for the judgment of the Conn as to the
joint debts of the partnership, and for permission to
rank with the other creditors for the separate and dia.
tinct cash account which the petitionerbad kept with
the bankrupt. There was numb discussion upon the
comimet of Oyster, is hiving wed as broker and

as buyer nr seller at the same time, and the statateof
James respecting partnerships in bankruptcies.
Sir SAMUEL ROM/LIS, in reply, urged that the as-
signees should be made personally liable for the costs
of the second issue, in order to he an example to pre-
vent wanton litigation on the part of assignees, Wild'
was an esil in bankruptcies which called loudly for
reform. As to the conduct of oyster, in acting as
broker and buyer, n r otijection could he made either
with respect to mota!ity or r quit y on the pate o! Mn.
line. It was merely the case of a trustee purchasing
the trust estate. And in reference to the bankrupts'
Claims, the principle would apply meter est ccnditio
parriderair. Moline lad made atEJavit that he had
never had any transactions with I)yster previotraly to
partnership. D) stet made affillvit that there were
cash accounts to the amount of £69,000; Moline in
a supplemental affidavit corrected his former affida-
vn, and admitted the separate acc.nint.
Mr. HART, for Moline, explained that he had cor-
reeled his affidavit of his own motion, and before Dy•
sire made his

The Loan Cu tscewia said, it was a case of so
much intricacy and difficulty, as reqoired time and
considetation on his part. 'lime was no doubt since
the use of Dyall and Rose that the outstanding debts
Ist the partnership were applicable to the claims upon
that pattnership. As to the law respecting a partner-
ship, where one is visible and the other dortnaat, it
was most difficult, and still undecided. A case had
been decided in the Court of Exchequer (Boyson's,)
which, speaking with due respect, he thought un-
warranted. In conversation with one of the Judges
lin that Court, who had long sat at the Bar in this
luestiOn, he found that they had perceived no &lit-
, cult, in the case. lie found also that the Learned
Judge at the head of another Court in Westminster-
ball (not in the Court in which the issue in this case
was tried) thought the question had no difficulty in
it. Mr. Scarlett too was of the same opinion. But
the conduct of this Court, in always avoiding to de-
tide upon the point, was in contradiction to this vpi-
niGn. He would make no reflection upon Mr. Dy-
ster's conduct as to acting both as broker and buyer.
It might be fair, but it ought to have been avowed.
Moline had no right to avail himself of such con-
duct, and yet to make it an objection to Dyster; but
the Court decided such cases on the grounds of pub
lic policy. In the case of Nevil and Wilkinson, Ne-
vil had persuaded Wilkinson to say to the father of
a young lady, whom he (N 011) afterwards married,
that he was not a creditor of Neva's. When Wil-,
kinson afters% artis claimed his debt of ,E6OOO, Lord
Thorlow refused, on the ground of public policy.—
As to the separate accounts, he would take the op.
portunity of examining the books produced ; and as
to the costs, he must privately and leisurely examine
into the case, and he would give his judgment with
as little delay as possible.