Star.
London, England, 1829-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dist. 5.
pt THE MATTI OP intriarosr, misname, AND CO. BANKRUPTS.
Mr. DANIEL stated, that this was the petition of Mr. Power,
who, some time since, being in the want of money, applied to Mr.
Rowland Stephenson for a loan; that gentleman agreed to lend
him Li ,000 upon a bond being entered into, an assignment made
of tell Shares in the Imperial Gas Company, and a deposit with
Mr. Rowland Stephenson of several valuable pictures, the property
of Mr. Power. The bond was drawn up, the Gas Shares assigned,
and the pictures deposited with Mr. Rowland Stephenson. The
money was not forthcoming at the appointed time, Mr. Stephenson
assigning as a reason the scarcity of money in the bank, in conse-
quence of the heavy runs upon it. Rowland Stephenson, however,
stated chat he should soon be able to raise the money. During the in-
terval the house of Remington and Co. became bankrupts, and the
petitioner received but L6OOO. The pictures deposited with-Row-
land Stephenson were handed over to the assignees, who refuted to
give them up without an order from the Court. The present Pe-
tition was therefore rendered necessary for the purpose of getting
re-possession of them. The assignees were perfectly willing to
yield up the property, if the Court thought that they ought to do so.
The Vica-Cnancaswo made the order as prayed.

II PAATZ COOPIR, IN Mt MATTER Or WINS%
This was a question whether there should be a new trial of an
bane. which had been ordered by this Court, to try whether a com-
mission of bankruptcy, issued against James Barnes, a banker, of
Ledbury, was one that was concerted between the bankrupt and
Madden, the petitioning creditor? At the trial, the Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, thereby overturning the commission.
Mr. TAUNTON and Mr. MONTAGUN this day agreed that this ver-
dict was wrong, and there was no proof of any concert between
the parties ; but that the petitioning creditor was the only acting
party ; and although he had several interviews with the bankrupt,
it was only for the purpose of inducing him to give information
by which he might prove an act of bankruptcy, to which the
bankrupt was averse. Mr. Montague said he hoped very loon
to see the day when all the nonsense about concerted commissions
should be done away with. There was no reason why a debtor,
being unable to pay all his creditors, should not be allowed to
procure an equal distribution of his property among them. The
law was so in Scotland, and Lord Meadowbank had raid that he
could not understand what the English lawyers meant when they
said that an insolvent person was not allowed to divide his effects
among his creditors.
His Honour the Vice-Cs:Ammon, without calling on Mr.
Campbell and Alf. Whitmarsh for the other side, said he saw no
reason to find fault with the verdict of the Jury. The law must
be taken as it stood, and he therefore granted the prayer of the pe-
tition, that the commission should be superseded at the cost of the
petitioning creditor and the bankrupt.

CONSISTORY COURT, Dec. S.
13rfore Dr. LUSHINOTON. '
?AGA! V. PAO&

This was a suit of separation brought by the wife, Catherine
Ann Page, against ber husband, Wm. Page, by reason of cruelty
and adultery.
Dr. ADDAMS, on behalf of the wife, prayed for the admission of
her allegation, containing twenty articles.
Dr. Domini opposed it, and commented upon the nature of the
libel ; In which he contended that many of the articles were irre-
levant. The charges of cruelty were only of a very general nature,
with the exception of that contained in the sixth article, in which
it was alleged that, in 1818, Mr. Page threw her down stairs while
in a state of pregnancy, which subsequently produced miscarriage.
He objected to the next article being admitted,in which an asstult
upon ber father was imputed, as it was an occurrence no way ne-
cessary to the object of the suit.
The Juno: reviewed the allegations of the libel, and said, with
respect to the objections as to the extent of time which they em-
braced, he was of opinion that, in some cases it became indispen-
sably necessary, as the wife frequently exhibited a reluctance to
separate from the husband upon the first act of •iolence. Al.
luding to the fifth and seventh articles, where it was pleaded that
miscarriage ensued from ill-treatment, this was a consequence
built upon a consequence, and therefore would suggest a little re-
formation. The other objection to the article containing the cruelty
to the father, he would overrule, as the attack was made upon him
while endeavouring to protect his daughter from her.husbaod's
violence. With the reformation he had pointed out, he would
direct the allegation to be admitted.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Die. 3.

GOW llt ♦. LAVE?.

This was an action to recover the sum of MB M. the amount
of the repairs of a chaise, and for the hire of another, whilst such
repairs were being done. The plaintiff was a coacismater, and de-
fendant an exciseman. _ _

The defence set up was, that the plaintiff had agreed to do the
job for 416 ; 424 however, was tendered after the delivery of the
bill. • It was also contended that it 'was not customary to charge
for the hire of a vehicle whilst the other was under repair.
Lord TiNTIRDIN said, the questions for the consideration of the
Jury were, as to whether the defendant was indebted more than
£24,and whether that sum was tendered before the writ was issued.
The defendant was bound to snake an'unconditional tender • but
the une in question having been accompanied with a condition,
could not be considered as a legal. tender. The Jury must there-
fore find for the plaintiff. It consequently remained for them to
say whether the .124 was sufficient and reasonable.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
128 91. 6d.
Several other Common Jury causes were tried, but none of the
least interest in a general point of view.