Star.
London, England, 1817-08-16 00:00:00

LAW IiVfLLLIfit.tvCIS.

COUR OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 14.
JACKM'N 1% TUE NATTER nr HOLLAND AND CO.

Hall.• d and Co. becam, bankrupts in 1810.
)les•r• H.) WOO at,tl Co. negociated bills for this
house to it e amount of £44,000. Two other houses
Lounds sow Beeson, and Fawcet, were concerned in
the can e bills. - At the latter end of May, 1810,
Lounds and Co. prevailed on Heywood and Co. to
give Holland and Co. credit for 54.50,000, in order to
rapport their credit, when otirerwise they must stop
payment. By this sum all the bills were relieved.
On she 12th of June following the bankruptcy of
Holland and Cu. was established.

Sir Samoa. Roseau, and Mr. MoNTAGIU now ap-
plied to the Court to have Heywood and Co. struck
off the het of creditors, contending that it was an
unfair transaction on their pert, by which they bad
obtained a preference.
Mr. Hoass replied, that if h were a • fraud of the
arum alleged, it was a most Absurd and foolish one.
Heywood and Co. had lent R 50,000 which they were
sore they could not recover, in order to 'mire
a 44,000 which they fright possibly have otherwise
secovered.

. .
The LORD CHANCILLOR.--Thill may be a good
case in Liverpool, but the petitioners have brought a
very bad one to London. I cannot grant their prayer.

IN THE MATTER CP &MCMICHAEL AND °rims.
A petition was presented from Thomas Gitton,
one c.f the bankrupts, praying that the commission
of bankruptcy be superseded, or renewed.
Sir Samuel. Rusuu.y and Messrs. WETHERELL,
CULLEN, and MONTAGU, supported the prayer of the
petition, on the grounds of individual justice and
public policy. Of the f►ve Commissioners three only
acted, and those three were creditors ; one of them,
Mr. Collins, to the amount of ,Cll,OOl. Collins,
Pitt, and Co. were the bankers in whose hands the
money was deposited. There were gross errors in
the repert of the Commissioners, but that would not
be gone into, as substantial justice, and the necessity
of satisfying the public that justice was administered,
made it indispensable that no person be allowed to
be judge in his owa cause.
Messrs. HoliNE, HEALD, and SPRANOTR, on the
other side, admitted the principle, but contended that
it was now too late to complain of the Commissioners.
Goon had himself acquiesced in their appointment
sit 1815, and it was not till thex•declared it necessary
to sell his private property, that he petitioned to have
them superseded.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said this was a very im-
portant case. Had this application been made at
the first, he should have had no difficulty to grant it;
but now great difficulty arose from the interests of
other parties. The other bankrupts had obtained
their certificates under this commission. and it must
therefore be considered how far they could be affected
by superseding it ? CP the principle he was ready,
however, to declare his strongest disapprobation. He
had had his habitation and dwelling in that Court for
forty years, and till within the last ten months, he
Lever heard of creditors acting as Commissioners,
and he hoped for two reasons that he should never
hear of it again. First, the case of Storey, in which
me creditor was a Commissioner, another Solicitor,
:Ind a third Assignee, afforded a striking instance of
the palpable injustice of such a proceeding ; and se-
condly, he had published an order, that on every
:oromission of bankruptcy being granted, assurance
he given to him that no creditor was among the Com-
missioners. He would read the petition with care in
ILe course et twelve or fourteen hours, and give
j::.dgment to-morrow morning.

AUGUST 15.
DOWNES t 7. GENZIEROOK.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said: that he was of opi-
nion that the sale could not stand t and that the She-
riff should be ordered to pay the money he had le-
vied into Court.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILM—Does not your Lordship
thank alit Mr. Grazebrook Ihoold be allowed cyst:

be is surely emitted to much mere. Altboup, the
ale is not good, he must be entitled to the divide As.

The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I have given my jug.
ment with great rehictapre against M. Grazebrodc.
Let him have his costs withotit pr.judice, and let he
estate be brought to sale before the Master during tl,e
va ca. ion.
rs; TILL MATTER OF EDWARD AND JOHN w.)ODOATE.

This was a question of considerable intricacy, re-
specting a mortgage claimed by Meux, Reid and Cu.l
over a lease of houses in Hunter.street. Edward
Woodgate, the elder, bad been a timber merchant,
and in 1811 took his son, Edward, into the concern
with him, whether as partner or nut did not appear.
Much about the sometime he obtained a lease of two
houses in Hunter-meet, from Mr. Penthrill, tuber
as a security foe debt doe to him by Penthrill, or as
la protection against recognizance: in which he was
liable for Penthrill. In 1212, Edward Woodgate,
the younger, and James Woodgate, took the whole
concern into their own hands, and the father retired.
In September, 1813, the sons mortgaged the lease,
mode in their father's name, to Meux, Reid and Co.
The lather became bankrupt next January. Edward
Woodgate, the younger, and James Woodgate, be-1
' came bankrupts since. The question was then raised
as to the property of the lease. In August, 1815,
application was made to the Lord Chancellor, and
be ordered a reference to the Commissioners. Their
report, detailing the various affidavits and parole evi-
dence that had come under their observation, was
nr.w brought before the Court.
Sir &sum. Raartatv and Mr. Haar contended
that the lease had really been the property of Edward
Woodgate, the younger, and James Woodgate, they
having given a valuable consideration for it : and
that, therefore, Meux, Reid and Co. had an equita-
ble and gond mortgage over it.
Messrs. MoNTAGUE and SPENCE replied for the
assignees of Edward Woodgate, the elder, that the
lease had never been the property of Edward Wood-
gate, the younger; that he had feloniously abstracted
it from his father's bureau; and that consequently
Meux and Co. held an equitable lien over it.
Mr. Coox, for the assignees of Edward and John
Woodgate, said, he appeared merely for costs.
The Lona CHANCELLOR considered this a very
complicated case. Edward Woodgate the elder had
a legal mortgage over the houses in Hunter-street.
Mem(' Reid and Co. claimed an equitable mortgage.
If Edward Woodgate the younger, acid James Wood•
trate, really gave a sum of money to the father, still
the father might retain the lease in consideration of
other claims upon his sons. His Lordship then en.
tered into all the details of the case, and concluded
by saying, that if he had taken a correct view of all
the circumstances, he should read all the affidavits
and papers with greater confidence and rapidity.