Star.
London, England, 1829-05-01 00:00:00


. . .LAW

.

•
• COURT OP KING'S RBNC'H, Assn. 30. • •
Adjourned /Airings at NM Prim, la Iliddleses,Ave Hilary Term,
• beton Lead Tammarome and *WM Jades.
3AiLICY Aitl. ANOTINIR W. MARIUS AND OTAINNS.
This was an action en a bond for 6.0901. given by the
fate Mr. Harris, of Covent-garden Theatre. to the late
General Bailey; to secure the repayment of a loan to
that amount. There was, first, a plea of iolvit ad die*
and nest, that the defendants, as executors of the late
Mr., Harris, hied conies sed judgment to, several simple
&Truitt creditors,' which had exhausted the assets of the
deceased before they had notice of the bond debt.
Sir JAI4IIII SCARLift stated the plaintiff's case. Mr.
Henry Harris, the principal defendant. was the son and
executor of the late Mr. Thomas Harris, who had
7.l9ihe of the whole property of the theatre. The
question was? whether he had Rot had sufficient notice
of this bond debt before the confession of the judgments
mentioned in the plea? and if not; then whether he had
net adequate, assets in his hands, after the satisfaction of
those demans.? There could be no doubt on the ques-
tion of notice, for be should be able to show the pay-
mettt • interest by Mr. Henry Hardee on the sum of
5,0901. (to which sum the debt due had been reduced,
sivto MS. With respect to the sufficiipcy of assets,
there •could be no doubt that Mr. Henry Harris came
iota the possession of funds at the death of his father,
which he had converted into cash for more than enough
t satisfy these demands. The Machinery alone must
• hive been worth above 40,0001. Besides this, he should
allow from a letter, written by Mr. H. Harris himself. in
18,11, at the time when it was proposed to let the theatre
to Kemble, Willett, arid Forbes, that it was in a Mosi•
dAtrishing condition At that time, and had paid off
.800,0001.01 debt. in the previous eleven seasons, besides

the current expenses. .
Several witnesses were then called, who proved facts
to the effect stated by Sir J. Sunhat, and also the pap
meot df interest on the bond. .
The, leases from the Duke of Bedford were put in, by
*lnch it appeared, that the whole of the grodad-rent for
Abe threave amounted to 2,1251. per annum.
EdMund Saul said he had been carpenter at thethea-
, tie for 20 -years: The old one was burned down in the
'leer 1868: The machinery was all destroyed. Mr.T.
Harris superintended the first season of witness's time.
Slr„Henry ;Haiti% took the management of the new
theatre.olleacenety and machinery wete very excel•
lent in. the year 1820, when Mr. Thomas Harris died.
The.salue of the sv udrobe was about 40 0001. Captain
Forlsei, Mr. Willett, Mr. Charles Kemble, and Mr.
Comt, 'sere also proprietors. when Mr. Harris died.
Mr. Quits= was proceeding to address the Jury
for the defendants, when,.
• Loid TINTBRDiti suggested a reference to a Barrister,
tr00p....p .
the question whether the defendants were charge-
able withany assets to any and what amount beyond the
sum sufficient.to satisfy the specialty debts in question?
The suggestion was acceded to by, the Counsel on
bothside., and a veidict Was then entered for the plain-
tiff, subject to a reference to Mr. Richards.
: ittiPtit U. PHILLIPS.
'The form of this action was that of trespass, for the
witgliii raking of the plaintiff's goods; and its object i
was rn try the validity of a commission of bankrupt
had been sired out. against the plaintiff by the
defenlant Mr. H. Phillips, the auctioneer, of New
Bond-street.... The only questions in• the cause were—
Arse,. whet he? the plaintiff was a trader within the mean-
ing.bfothe.Bankrupt Act? and secondly, whether he had
corninieted an act of bankruptcy? The alleged trading
consisted in the plaintiff's buying and selling goods, and
the act. of banktuptcy in his having departed the
korgdorn, or continued out of the kingdom, with
intent to defraud or delay his creditors. The trial
of the 'cause, vAich involved various minute details,
. occupied the Court bet Ween ail and seven- hours.—
The following are the principal fact.: The plaintiff,
Mssior Roper, wins it.. Was stated was a first cousin of
Lord Telnham, had for twelve or thirteen years, prior
to .1828. been a constant .attendant at the defendant's
s•ftleivitt New Bond-street, both as a buyer and seller.
He jisi'',formerly acted as agent for the Margrsvine of
iih,;and under a power of attorney from her Lady-
, ifyinldber property by auction at the defendant's
roorma..,..He had.rilio purchased, at the' defendant's sales,
various.artiiles on account of her Ladyship, as well as
. tin ldis Owls rice-aunt. In May, 1828, there was a balance
40e.ficlin biln to the defendant of nearly 2,0001. Or
rite .2.th -of .1144 month the plaintiff was seised with
• apopleckiiiiii
.tto violent was the attack that he was
for
.a cditsiaerable time deprived of the power of
speech,: and.„l9,ls. the entire use of his right arm,—
Being recommendna by his.rnedical advisers to go to.'
the sea side for. a ';change of air and bathing.. he
expressed a' wish t 9 go over to Calais, where he had an
'sea lather and a.sisre living ; but it being uncertain
ishether.he would be able to reach that place, it was de-
leymined, on his leaving London, that he, should go
only so far as Dover.. On the 28th of July in the last
yeas he left London. accompanied by his two daughters
and Captain
.Dance, his now son in law. After re.
Maining at Dover a short time, he 'tent over to Calais
with them, and soon after his arrival there, the de.
fendant tirhp had Jim been apprised of his intention
to Wise. London, ton,wes told afterwards by his son
• that he Was gitimpsent over . to. Calais,• accompanied
'bp, his :attnrnee, for the purpose of arranging the
accounts between them and procuring a bond and war•
rant of. attorney for the balance due from the plaintiff.
An iniervieeiccordingly took place, but the plaintiff
vetiver, tn. i!% ii the security required, and the defendant
then reqtyl - that he should immediately return to
Engle-n(li, Ife,bowever, did not return, and toe de-
fendanavon the.2oth of August, sued out a commission.
of bankruptcy against him. It was proved that the
plaintiff, when be left London, had no intention to be,
absent.* more than three
.or four weeks, and that his
journey= to Calais had not been finally determined on
Tail after his arrival at Dover. It was also proved that
he had Verily' -kept a good account at 'his bankers, that
he paid his tradesmen regularly, and that there was no
creditor besides the defendant who had proved a debt
against him under:the commission.
For thedefendant, it was proved that in 1811 the
plaintiff (who was an officer in the army on half pa))
was discharged under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, anu
that in hie schedule at that time he stated that he bad•
antscate.ar liffec‘s ; that in 1816 be again applied to
take the benefit of tie Act, and upon that occasion he
stated his debts amounted to 0001 and his assets (in.
eluding three table spoon which were in pawn for
80s.) to ta Evidence was also given (with a view to
prove the trading) that the plainti had for many years
past bought various articles, via. pisturehprints, book%
plate, jewellery, china, and wine at the defendant's sales,
and that be had in sane insulates resold the tattle ar,.
ticket. It did no; appecr, Wetter?. that be had made
any considerab:e profit ht the articles sold, nor was its
shown that the greater pen of the anklet' plorilidieid at
the defendant's rooms wine not perchased'osl "Mont