Star.
London, England, 1828-12-17 00:00:00

LAW I.NT4LLIGENCE:

COURT OF CHANCERY. Dae. 16.
• iN RR CHAN/MRS. A BANKRUPT. ".•
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case.
'The facts were, that William Ctrambers, a brother of
the bankrupt, had proved under his commission for a
debt of 5,7941. and had at the same time offered to prove
another debt of 6281. which was not received by the
Commissioners, because Mr. Wm. Chambers held a
security for the latter sum, w hich he did not choose to
'relinquish. Hr then brought an action against his
'brother, as well for the sum for which he had proved,
as for that which bad been rejected, and for others
which had since become due to him. The action was
undefended, and the plaintiff obtained judgment in the
Court of Exchequer, where it was brought,under which
ledgment he took in execution some of the property of
the banksupt, the right.to which was then vested in the
assignees. An application was made on the part of the
Issigneei to the Vice Chancellor, - who directed the
execution to • be. withdrawn: From ,Isis Honour's
'order an appeal had been made, which, after being
fully discussed at the bar, his Lordship was now
n.bout to decide. According to the opision of the
Court pronounced in a recent case (in re Schlesinger),
*creditor of &bankrupt had a right, notwithstanding
his hav;ng proved one debt under a conintission, to
proceed at law fora distinct debt. It Was.qiiite clear,'
however, that having elected t 3 prole, he could not
proceed at law for the same debt. Io this cafe, kow-
ever, both causes of action had been 00;ted, and as
lee) ing execution on the bankrupt's estate for the judg.
Mint he had obtained in that action was altogether
wrong, he did not see any other order the Court could
have made than that which had been pionounked by
the Vice ChancellOr. -it h 4cl been said at the bar, that'
a quAified order might have been made ; but his Lord-
ship did not see how that wai possible.. It was clear
- the Court of Exchequer could hive made no such par-
tial order, if it had been applied for. a noli prOteliki
had been obtained, it would have operated as an nue-
guishment of the whole 'proceeding,-but could not affect
any part of it. These difficulties, which had not bees
adverted to at thc' bar, were insurmountable; but the
Court was not to take their burden on itself. They were
of Mr. William Chambers% creating, and if he wished
ahem removed, he must so Alter the record at law as to
'get effectually rid of them. It was not now necessary
to determine whether, if the record had been right, the
plaintiff could have been at liberty to came his judg-
ment on property in the hands of the assignees. His
Lordship therefore affirmed the judgment of the Vice-
Chancellor, whith was all that could now be done,
directing the execution to be Withdrawn for the reasons
stated, and leaving it to the plaintiff in the action- to
bring the case, if be could,.in "anotheembirpe befolodie
Court.

COURT 07 KING'S BENCH, WlLSTlthisets; Dm. Le.
WARD V. CORSI'.
This was an action by a landlcrd to recover rom, his
tenant a small sum for land-tea. The only gtOstion
was, as to Which of the parties" was istabts to pay the
tax: At appeAred that no agreementon-tite"subject had
been made between the parties .t the time the defend.
ant became 'the plait:tiff% tenant, but some payments
for land•tax had -been made by he tenant *ROT the
defendant succeeded ;. kind it was contended by-Sr J.
Scant.nrr, for the .plaintiff, that under the Landotiz
Act of the 88th tieo. 111.4.-5, the defendant was at all
events liable to pay a proportion- of the tan, it net the
•hole.
Lord TISNTERDEN. however, diiected a nonsuit; on
he gingni.l that where no specific agreement was snide
betwixt) a landlord and his tenant, the flamer was liable
to pay tin land-tax.
A nonsuit was then entered, with libeity tti isSimit.to
sit it aside.

- - •

DOLBELL ,
In. IIELCtti-
This was an action aft. Officer iu t4e
cover a Sum of 401. under the folloWing circuenstanegs
The defendant, an army butter, had in 41.itgustline been
applied to by the wife of the pi'int'ff to eficfeitioir to
procure for her husband, who Was then, obi ralf pay,
some situation in the army which would place Vas
on full pay, and enable him to go abrearch and the
defendant in the course of a shoit-time rePre4nted thi
he had obtained a Payesastetship in the 97th ReiTment,
and had written to the 'plaintiff, who was-then in- the
otii tiy, to that effect. Mrs. Dolbell, who being
lipart from her husband ( be plaintiff). and receiling a
%elm. Ate income under s deed of settlement made on
ha fiat' marriage, was subsequently applied to by the'
.defendant for remuneration for his service., and upon
the representation which he then made to her she was
*litdOtekfto send him, through her trustee, drantitc,
fn 404 but it ruining out ultimately that no situation
had been priicUred for the plaintiff, the present action
was brought in his name to recover back tle 401. •It
appeared that the defeticlant twining aliplied to to re-
turn the money, prianited to do so on haiing a written
i.rder from Mrs. Dolbell, tut no such order had been

jet
12,
es, s

.~

5,100
• 340

given tyon this evidence
Lord TIINTeRDIAN stopped the cause, obsertringithsit
as the.money which had been adianced to the defendant
was the separate property of Mrs. D..lbell, this action,
which was brought in the name of the husband, could
not be maintained.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited.
• LINCOLN V. HIATIICOTIL
This was an action by an organ-builder residing in'
High Holborn.
to recover a sum of 18/. 16i. for de-
livering and fitting up an organ at the defendanes,sesi•
.dente.. The plaintiff bad been employed by the defer.
dant, a gentleman of fortune, to build him an.orgsn,
the price of whicb,,according to the origioil contract,
was to be 5001. but. that contract was ultimately aban-
doned, and the. organ was afmr wards completed for
7001. egh;ch suns the defendant had paid. The organ
was•sielivered and, fittrti up at the defenriaet's residence
at Tottenham ; and ,the questitin now was, whether,
according lo.the of igin 11 agreement bet omen the parties,
the elpimes.of such delivery and fitting up were to be
incluied in the price for building the organ, or were to
be charged for t the defendant separately
For the ptaiotiff, it was proved by Ur... Robson, of
the. firm of Flight and *Own, organ builders. that
According to the usual practice in the trade, the right to
charge separately for the delivery of instruments of this
descriptitz depended upon the terms of the contract
diode I$ the parties; and that where no stipulation was
made Fo the contrary, it was u:ssi to charge separately
for the delivery. Ott the part of ;he, defendant, a
Clergyman, of thrname of Haines, who was present
at the time' the order• for the organ in question wee
given by the defendant, was called, and deposed so the
terms of the original contract. It appeared from his,
evidence, that the, agreement was that the organ should
be built for 5001. and delivered in three months 19r.that
som 6 but it was contended by the Counsel .for. the
plaintiff, that as the original contract was abandoned,
' and& new price agreed upon lot "the organ, it Was
iteasessable to suppose that the agreement as to the de-
livery had also been varied,. and 4* .therefore AIM

was.enttided to make the estrcharge, accord.
injk'to the Cu, tom of the trade.
1.91c1 TERTERDIN, however, left the ease to the Jury
utiatitliequerion as to the teems of the griginal con-
rract, tilling them that it they gave effect to the tebti
mony of Mr. Wine., their verdict ought to be for the
defendant.
The Jury without hesitation found for the defendant

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. GUILDHALL, Dec. ter.
WITRILMNUTON AND ANOTHER V. HERRIN° AND OTHIRS.
M. Sergeant 'FADDY and Mr. Sergeant Russet.[. ap-
peared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Sergeant WILDR and;
Mr. Sergeant STRPHRN far the defendants.
Thii
section was brought on nine bills of exchange
drawn upon the. defendants, br a person named Crab-
tree, whom they had employed as an agent in Peru.
The defendants hai it in contemplation to form a com-
pany for carrying on mining operations in South Ame-
rica, and had sent out Mr. Crabtree, as an individual
acquainted with the country, to ascertain the prudence
and practicability of their intended scheme. In case he
should feel persuaded that' there was a fair field lot
speculation, he had been empowered to take certain steps'
towards the promotion of the business. The instruments
by which he was thus autimiised to act were an agreement
dated the Ist of November, 1825, a power of attorney,
dated the Bth of the same month, and letters of credit
written aba ut the same pc. inf. By the agreement it was
arranged that Crabtree should proceed to South Ame-
rica, and be paid 1,0001. for his trouble, with the pro-
vision, that if he remained longer abroad than a
year from his leaving London,f.e should receive 1 0001.
for every year he might Ike obliged to stay, with a fifth
put of the profits accruitternm his mission. The letter
ofinstiuctions limited the discretional trust placed in
Crabtree bs the rower of attorney, making some matters
Therein left witho..t restriction subject to the review of
the parties in England, conflating his expenditure to the
sum of 10,0001. and forbidding him to take advantage of
those who had suffered from puha ical sting g les,and whose
property might be unsettled. It was evident that the
agent had eicfreded his powers ; and f..ut bills, for sums
amounting to more than 2,4001. were in consequence at
once struck off f. ova the plaintiffs' claim. Three other
hills were likewise. struck off; and only the remaining
two, one of A+ hid) was for 4991. 19s. 10d. and the other
for 1,0201. 16-. BJ. were allowed as being given for
purposes in accordance with the agent's letter ot instruc-
tions. On the oiler hand it was contended, on behal
of the plaintiffs, t',at the defendants were liable forthe
rest of the bills, as Crabtree, being admitted to a filth
share of the profits of the undertaking, was virtually
a partner.
"The LORD CHltr Jorrics did not. concur inAhis
Ilitv! of
.the matter; and stated that he would' save the
amuses:ion c:f.the instruments by which the agent aas
itittborised for the consideration of the Court above.
Crabtree, malting questioned 'by the Court, said that
he.did .not showthein truments to tie persons. -with
whom he had the transactions. •

The LORD CHIRII JURTICS, in giving • his directions
to tfit:Jory,, said it--was most important to the cornmer
cial iaterests of Englitni that questions affecting het
'trade . Nigh Eueign commies should be-carefully esa-
ivined,.and decided according to the strictest principles
justice. There had heels a claim for 6,200 i. advanced'
Ai) the defepdentili agent, upoa nine bills,' on the faith'
,that the defendants were tespensible. F .ur of theseisad
lieeteattoptesfiksoivd.pfren.l it h id appewed.tbat other
tiktk were tips aleriessdab'e.,- vs thi y applied to a Tint'
;peen a, for-which the priwer of attorney cleat ly gaited*
-.gent no authority to boron," money. Then there r
Taiimitbatwcibiliiiter 1,010116•.8 '. aticl499/.19:.10d:,
Wit)rtegardle these thc.3tiry Woold satisfy thentseleeiel
'irliatheh had Amor the leucr, of audit -fit*
10,600 L and- whether they wipe. swats of that letter
ham,, been expended, the agent bad privatised any
Setif 'the defendant's Were te.pon The Jury, fro*
the ;Wass! oft tide, would say if the loiter of credit shO'ultj
-iive,beetioieen.by the plaintiffs anti if it was their duty
ter call for the agent's in;tructipns. The other bills de.
-pended op Clear cireurnutanie-, but these loomed a cow
plicated ease, in determining r, hick the Court abdtee
iroula,lic guided by the decision Lf the Jury.
The Jury retired for about tliiee.quas ter s of an hour,
and found that ",it_was the pl.iititiff?' duty to call lot
and eastinine the pow/el...pi attorney. and letter of crediti
that teem was no evidence to show whether they had or
had not. ,one this;- and that there was r.o evidence 'of
the matey/on the two bills being 'advanced for any pin.
prise but that specified in the_instructiptit."
Damages f the plaintiffs 1,5204 16% 6d. being the
/Moat of the two bill;.

WIN'f;FAi HOME CIRCUIT.

...

• MAIDSTONE, Dm 16.

Brtwa Mr. B rei'Varrenstr. •
THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION or GEORGE NIGHTIN-
GALE, THOMAS .wt)OLLEY, ONE GENT. &C. RICHARD
.CROUCH AND JAMES' hIETGALII. FOR CONSPIRACY.
Mr. BRODRICK said this was an indictment against
the thin derendAnts; for wickedly and maliciously con-
spiring to charge, the prosecut George Nightingale,
with *capital offence of assaulting and robbing one of
the defendants,-Ilichard crouch, at Warwick, in July,
)132.5. A second count charged them with conwiringi
)o prosecutethe said Nightingale, for the said capital-
felony, intent to estort.money, &c,
- The defendota pleaded. Not Guilty. • . •
I.lr..AD.lillue stated the facts of the case to theJurya
'he preient inquiry was one r f the first i.mportarce,
gad 'demsanded at the hind. of the Jury the most serious
attention. The'defencLints were charged with, a mica.
Demeanour, in having conspired to prefer a charge of
robbery against the prosecutor, which chargehad at twin.
From a sordid dearet on their parts to obtain the property
of the prosecut9r, and which charge they attemi.ted to
sopport.by committing. the ,vile.t perjuries. It would be
nec: ssary, to enable the Jury to fully understand thecae,
that he should detail the facts which he should prove
by hit witnesses. In the yor 1827 the prosecutor,
Nightingale, was tried' at Maidstone on a .charge of
stealing the Italian mail bags out of the Dover mail.
On that trial Nightingale proved, to the entice 'seas.
faction of the Court-and Jury, that he was at Tiver-
ton, in Devonshire, at the very moment the robbery
of the Dover mailtook place, and he was acquitted.
It would'be'proved that Woollea. and Crouch were at
Maidstone at the time the trial 'of. Nightingale took
place, and as loon is be was discharged they caused
him to be apprehendek and •taken before Mr. Argal, a
Magistrate, at Maidstone, on a charge of robbing the
defendant (Crooch), at. the Cantle Tavern, at Wag wick,
of 5501. on the. 19tb of July, 1825. The defendant
Crouch had previously charged a bozer,-named Stock-
man, and another man, with the same offence, and hi
had gone-before a • rand Jury with an indictment
against those Pelson', which bill was ignored. The evi
deuce given by the defendants on different occasions,
when contrasted, crimpletely developed the conspiracy
charged. Theros-cution against Nightingale was not
thoeght of by thg:defendants till two years after the tob-
bay was CQflialitt,C4 ; and their conduct in keeping bick
asiadictatoat till the last day of did Aniies atWarwiikst