Star.
London, England, 1828-01-15 00:00:00

It•PARTZ HAWKINS, IN RZ HOWARD AND 013114

Mr. BICKERSTETH informed his Lordship that the
parties in this case had agreed to have the question in
dispute tried on an issue, if his L'rdsLip would now
direct it. The terms agreed OR were, that the issue should
be, to try .1 whether any and v hat debt was due to Mr.
Hawkins from Messrs. Howard and Gibbs at the suing
forth of the commiiiionr Mr. Hawkins was to be the
plaintiff, ani the assignees• defendants: and the parties
were desirous of trying it in the Court of King's Bench.
The LORD Crinsicm,,on saiJ, if the parties desired
to have the matter speedily decided, they had better
go to the Court of Common Pleas; for, from what he
knew of the stare of the cause paper in the King's
Bench, if must be some time before the issue could be
brought on.
Mr. BICKILitaTITH said, that had been considered,
and he was instructed to say, that notwithstanding the
inconvenience which his Lordship had alluded to, the
parties on both sides preferred having the issue tried in
the Court of King's Bench. He applied also for leave
in the mean time to enter a claim on the proceedings in
the commission against Howard and Gibbs. for the
amount of the debt charged to be due to Mr. Hawkins.
The order was pronounced accordingly.
After hearing some bankrupt petitions of no public
interest, the Court rose at ball-past two o'clock.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 14.
DEW V. CLARKE.

In this case it will be recollected, that Mr. Roupell
made an application to the Court for an order directing
the Warden of the Fleet to bring up the defendant, who
is in custody for contempt of court, to Sr C. Wethei ell's
chambers, in order to attend a consultation, and also
to the Court of Delegates, in order to be present at the
hearing of an appeal in which he was deeply interested.
This application, which was made during the last
Sittings of the Court, was ordered to stand over, in order
to give Mr. Roupell an opportunity of producing autho-
rities in support of his application.
Mr. ROUPELL now renewed his application, and cited
several orders from the Registrar's books, which the
Learned Counsel contended to be in point, and in favour
of his application, _ _

Mr. Summit opposed the application. He said, that
the orders cited by his Learned Friend were made to
bring prisoners up to that Court. This jurisdiction of
the Court was undoubted, 'but it was quite another
thing, and quite out of the jurisdiction of the Court, to
'make an order to bring a prisoner up to another Court,
over which the Court of Chancery had no control. •
The Vice CHANCELLOR agreed with Mr. Sugden.—
He thought that the Court had no jurisdiction in a mat.
ter of this nature, and he must therefore refuse the"

application.
His HONOUR was occupied during the remainder of
the day upon bankrupt petitions.
COURT OF KINO•S BENCH, GausHALL, JAL 14.
Sittings before Lord Tarricaszn and CoinniOn
PATES AND OTHERS V. caausew.

This was an action of trover, by the assignees.of Mr.
Thomas Marshall, a cloth factor, formerly carrying on
business lb Basinghall-street, against the defendant, to
recover the value of certain goods belosiging to the
bankrupt,which it was alleged the defendanehad wrong.
fully possessed himself of. It appeared that Marshall, the
bankrupt, who had been in a most extensive way of
business as a cloth factor, had, in the spring of 1923,
become connected with the defendant,a wholesale wool-1
len draper, residing in Queen.street, Cheapside. At that
time, Marshall was in embariassed circumstances. Ha
had obtained on credit goods to a large amount

,

,varions manufacturers in the country. These he 'di..
posed of to the defendant at prices considerably less than
those-erbich were-charged to him by the manofectyrers,
and in (Act at a loss of a very large per centage. The
defendant being, as it was contended, cognisant of the
fact of the insolvency of Marshall at the time of the

dealing between them, was now called, on to pay to the
plaintiffs, as the assignees of Marshall's estate, the fall
,a'ne of the goods which he had purchased of the bank.
'upt under the circumstances stated.
Tie Anna.= GiNERAL, in opening the Case• ott•
the part of the plaintiffs, said he hoped the system sof
jobbing, in which the transactions between the bat b'.
rupt and the defendant, with several others of a simians,
nature, had originated, would beShortly put an end to,
as its existence was most detrimental to the idterests of

cemmerce.
The principal facts of the case were proved by the
evidence of John Mi'weed, the bankrupt's warehouse.
13210, and Mr. Paul, an accountant, who bad lc.. retried
the books of the binkrept and defendant, and invati•
gated the.transactious between them. The former stead
that the goods, which had been obtained by Marshall
from the country manufacturers, were frequently sent
to the defendant', warehouse without being unpacked,
and someday: they were sent without any invoice, and
before any entry of them was made in the bankrept's
books. On several occasions there was not 6(1. worth
of goads left in the bankrupt's warehouse. they having
been all sent to the defendant, who himself was soma
times much pressed for cash, and obliged to have credit
for some of the goods. In addition to this evidence, a
variety of books and documents were put in to :hew
the nature of the dealings between Marshall and the
defendant; and ii:appearrd tt t on every r cca,ion,
when goods were. sad to defendant, Marshall was a
c-nsiderable loser. In one instance, in the year 1823,
he had sold at a loss of between nine and ten per cent.
and at other times at a loss of 24,10, 38, and 41 ; er cent.
Tae total lo,s in the fear 1823 was estimated at the
srm of 6311. 3;. which was about a fourth of the
amount of the sales in that year. The amount of the
isles in 1824 was 12,7851. and the lo,s on that

amount was 4,7441. making the average loss in
that year upwards of thirty-lour pounds per cent.—
It was proved irso that the prices charg, d by the ma•
nufacturers for the good' supplied to Marshall. were
fair and reasonable, acco:ding to the rate of the Mar-
ket, and such as would have enabled Marshall t
again at a moderate profit; but the witnessesstated that
t! e prices at which the goods were sold by Marshall'to
the defendant were, in many instances, such as were
not sufficient even to pay for the raw mate ial of the
art cies. The detendant, it was stated, must have been
aware that the prices he gave for the goods were can-,
siderably below the real value of them; and from tbe

whole of the circumstances, the jury were called upqn
to infer that the defendant, at the time of his dealings
with Marshall, knew that that person was in insolvent
circumstances. It appeared that several acts of bank.
ruptcy had been committed by Marshall in January,
1824, though the commission against him did not isseit
till the 2J of November in that year. The transactions
between Marshall and the defendant ceased in July,
1824. For the goods sold from January. 1824, till
that time, the defendant had paid only 8 3581. instal
of upwasds of 12 0001. which it appeared was their

value according to the regular alai ket price; and the
whole of the latter sum was now claimed by the plain-
tiffs, as the assignees of Marshall.
Mr. GURNEY addressed the jury for the defendant,
and observed that the existence of his client, together
with that of a large family, depended on te verdict to
be pronounced against him in this case. In claiming
upwards of 12,0001 as damages, the plaintiffs were
taking the whole value of the goods on one side, and
its a king no allowance for the 8,0.0 and odd pounds
pad by the defendant on the other. If they could
charge him with any sum, surely they must give cred•t
fir the money he had actually paid. But he (the
Learned Counsel) should contend that the plaintiffs wets
of entitled to a verd ct. At the time the c m Lsirist
ct bankrupt against Marshall issued, there had been
a cessation of all transactions between the panics tor a
period of upwards of four months, and there was no
evidence to show that the defendant knew that Marshall
was insolvent, or had committed secret acts of bank•
ruptcy so long back as January, 1824, the commission
not having been issued till November. The Jury ought
not to give effect to these secret acts of bankruptcy, as
nothing could be mote dangerous to mercantile trans-
actions. The defendant, during his dealings with Mar-
shall, never doubted his solvency. Marshall sold him
that he had bought the goods cheap; bet the invoices,
had never been handed to him (definJant). and there. ,
fore he could not know on what terms Marshall was
dealing with the country manufacturers. The moment
be entertained a suspicion of Marshall's solvency, he
ceased dealing with him. There was no proof of wrong-
fed conversion Of the goods by the defendant ; and, as
this was an action of trover, the absence of proof of that
kind Was fatal to the action.
Lord TENTRRDEN said it bad been decided that where
a person purchased goods of another which he had no
right to sell, that was a cenversion enabSing a party to
maintain an action Of covet.
Mr. Gm= then continued his Observations, con-
tending that there was no evidence to satisfy the jury
that the defendant knew of Marshall's being in insol-
vent circumstances at the time of she dealings between
them. He sabmirted, that upon the whole facts of the
case the defendant was entitled to their verdict.
Lord TERTERDER, in summing up, told the Jury that
they were to judge 9f the defendant's knowledge•of.
Marshall's insolvency from the nature of the dealings
between the parties. If; from the whole course of aleal-•
ings, they were satisfied that from the month of Janu-
ary to the month 2of Ju1y..1824, the defendant knew
that he was dealing with an insolvent person, their vet..
dict must be for the plaintiffs. It was for them to c•rn-
sider whether the defendant, as a man of business and
acquainted with the nature of the markets, could sup-
pose, that for the sake of ready money, Marshall a mid
have gone on month after month, for a period of mere
than a twelvemonth, selling goods at a ruinous sacri-
fice, unless he were in a state of inst Ivency. • It bad
been said by the defendant's counsel, that it would be
hard to make the defendant, pay the sum claimed in
this action, having already paid, for the goods had of
Marshall, a sum of upwards of B,ooof. Those. who
dealt with insolvent men, however, must expect to get
into difficulties, and they had only themselves to thank
for it. If, therefore, the jury were satisfied that Mar-
shall committed an act of bankruptcy in January 182',
and that, from that time until July following, the de-
fendant was aware of his being in insolvent circumstan-
ces, the whole of the dealings between them were inva-
lid, and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the full
Value of the goods sold to the defendant within that
period. • As, however, this. was an action of 'rover, the
jury might, if they thought proper, give a smaller sum
by way of damages, than the entire value of the goods.
• The Jury, after: retiring for a►out a quarter of an
hour, found a veidlit'lor"tbe plaintiff— Damages
3,9991. 7,.

:~T, .•

.

~ '..1

M►DDLESIa SES.qONS, JA•uaKY 1.

-

~~►

initiate Dorrien, Esq. a person of some note in the
City., who was ab~ut two months back held to bail at
Bow-street, himself in 6001. And two sureties in 3001.
each, on a charge of indecently assaulting two soldiers,
and against whom two true bills were found at the last
December Session, the trial of which ought to ha*
taken place at this Session, has thought fit to forfeit his
bail by not appearing to take his trial. The witnesses
for the prosecution were in attendance each day, but
finding at last there was no probability of his appearance,
they applied to the Court to relieve them from the ne-
cessity of further attendance by discharging their re-
cognizance!, and also to allow them their expenses.
The CHAIRMAN inquired of Mr. ADen, the clerk of
the'Colitt, whetlier there was any reason for expecting
Mr. Dorrien would yet come in to take his trial?
Mr. ALLEN said he considered there was none. The
amount of the bail, and personal recognizance en-
tered into by M.. Dortien, together 1,2001. had al-
ready been paid to th.• Sheriff,—a course not likely
to have been taken if the individual intended to
stand his ft ial. Indeed, some days before the commence-
ment of the Session, a Gentleman had waited on him,
(Mr. Allen), and tendered 6001. in discharge of the re-
cognizance% entered into by Mr. Dorrien's two bonds-
men, but he refused" to accept the money, unless the
amount of Mr. Dorrien's personal recognizance was also
paid at the same time. The Gentleman demurred to
doing this, and was referred to the Sher iff'solfice, where
the 604. was also refused to be taken, and the result
watt, that the whole amount had since been paid.
The CuAIIhaAN, under these circumstances, ordered
tale recognizances o the prosecutors to be discharged,
and their expenses to be allowed.
Edward Braun, who on Friday pleaded 44 Guilty" to'
an indictment charging him with having endeavoured
to incite Mr. Martin to engrave for him 2,500 imita-
tions of the notes of the Sunderland Bank, was brought
up to receive the sentence of the Court.
The Coasamara sentenced him to the minimum of the
punishment fixed by one of Mr. Peel's late Acts in cases
of aggravated misdemeanour—namely, two year's im-
pri ment cad hard labour in the House of Correction.
Ann and Mary Worry and Iliseheth O'Neil were
indicted for an outrageous assault Ou Mrs. Wells, of
Crown-street, Soho.
The prisoners, it appeared, went to Mrs. Weirs shop
t inquire for a person who lodged there, against whom
they had conceived an ill wilt. Mrs. Wells endeavoured
to protect this party from their violence, and in so doing
brought it down upon herself. They pounced upon her,
dragged her about by her bait, and bruised and injured
her most severely. Mary Malony flung a four pound
weight at her head, but the blow was partied by her
arm, and the other Malony honied a baking dish at her,
which struck her on the upper lip, making an incision
completely through, and severely lacerating the gum
underneath. Vet diet—Utility.
The Court sentenced each of the prisoners to six
weeks itnptisooment, in addition to the tin months
they had already been in custody.
John Allen Robinson, aged 20 years, pleaded guilty
to an indictment, charging him with assaulting his
own father.
The prosecutor, an elderly and infirm man, with
evident reluctance, entered into a detail of his son's-
niscondutt, from which it appeared that this was not
his first offence, and that he had by his violence so
destroyed the health and peace of mind of his mother,
se to render it necessary to call in a i.hysician, by whose
advid she had been removed into the country. That he
was in the habit of staying out till three or four o'clock
of a morning; would do no wotk, and when refused
'limey, or reproved for his misconduct, would abuse,
and even assault his aged father.
The pawner offered no contradiction so this state-
ment, but merely said he should have no objection to
'Rake an arrangeinent with his father, if he would alio*
him s 4 much pet-Week.
'The CHAIRMAN said, that an art angement, as he
called it, was quite out of the qttestion, and sentenced
Wm to six months solitary confinement.
The Court, at its rising, adjourned until Thursday