Star.
London, England, 1819-08-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

1

ft

.~' _t
},

I

-

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUGUST 2.
TM PORTSMOUTH DANK.
)Er-PARTE THE ASSIGNEES IN THE MATTER OF MIN-
CHIN AND OTHERS, BANKRUPTS.
Mr. CULLEN stated, this was the petition of the
Assignees of the Bankrupts, praying that the pro-
ceedings under a commission nf banckruptcy, which
is.aed on the 10th of November last, might be depo-
sted with his Lordship's Secretary of Bankrupts,
until an application which was intended to be made
to the Court of King's Bench, was decided ; that ano-
ther commission might issue ap-ainst the bankrupts
oa the petition of Alexander M'Leud, a creditor; and
that the Secretary of Bankrupts should be at liberty
to produce the proceedings under the first commis-
sion to the Commissioners under the second, if they
should think it necessary.
Mr. HORNE said, it was his duty to interrupt his
Learned Friend. As a petition was presented to his
Lordship to supersede this commission, with costs,
he could only look at this . petition as a maiicerivre
of the assignees to get rid of the petition of his client.
Mr. Mos:raouE said if it was a manoeuvre he and
his Learned Friend (Mr. Cullen) were the culprits,
as it was presented by their advice.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I NVill hear this petition,
at the same time bearing in mind that there is another
petition pending.
Mr. CuLLEN stated, that the petitioners were cho-
sen assignees by creditors who had debts against
the bankrupts to the amount of £32,000 and up'.
wards; that there were most important proceedings
taken under the commission ; that there had been ten
private meetings of the Commissioners, besides pub-
lic ones, and the bankrupts had passed all their exa-
minations. The commission issued on the petition
of Messrs. Mastermans, bankers, in London, and the
assignees brought an action to recover a debt due to
the estate ; it was tried at the present assizes for
Southampton, before Mr. Baron Zilraharn. There
the defendant raised a question as to the vali-
dity of the commission. The Learned Judge was
of opinion that there was a good petitioning credi-
tor's debt, but the petitioning creditor's Solicitor
being privy to the acts of bankruptcy committed by
the Bankrupts, they could not hold, as Messrs. Mas-
termans were answerable for the conduct of their
Solicitor, and the Jury returned a vet diet for the de-
fendant. lithe Court of King's Beach granted a new
trial, it could not come on till spring ; and although
Baron Graham was of opinion that the acts of bank-
ruptcy were not good as to Messrs. Mastermans,
yet he was of opirrion they would be good as to any
other petitioning creditor, and of course would be
valid as they related to Mr. M•Leod. lie had the
affidavit of Mr. Bridge, the solicitor of the assignees,
which set forth, that his clients had entered into con-
tracts for the sale of the real and personal estates of
the bankrupts, and had received mortgages from
debtors to the bankrupts estates ; and also had re•
ceived several sums from other debtors, whom they
had brought actions against for the recovery, but
which were abated by the payments made, and that
they, the assignees, had assets in their hands belong:
ing to the bankrupts estate amounting to I.:35,000.
He .(the Learned Counsel) could not conceive any
thing more useful than that his Lordship should use
the judicial power which had been placed in his
hands, and grant the prayer of the petition ; and, in
his opinion, there was nothing that could be so per-
nicious to the ends of justice as superseding the com-
mission.
Mr. NlowritouE followed.
Mr. HART, counsel for the petitioning creditors,
Messrs. Masterman's, said his clients were ready to
submit to any order his Lordship might please to
make for the benefit of the creditors.
Mr. IlortsE said, he was certainly put to great in-
convenience by the way this petition had been brought
on, as his clients had not been served with it,
although the assignees were served with the petition
to supersede the commission. He held in his hand
the affidavit of one of the assignees, made in January
last, in which he swears that he did not believe there
was a good petitioning creditor's debt.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—From the little I have
heard and seen of this case, the step that is asked to
be taken by this petition is a most important one, and
most novel in its nature. Many important matters
may take place if the commission is superseded, and
also if it is not. Hand me up all the petitions, for
it is necessary I should be in possession of all the in•
formation they contain. I however cannot help say-
, ing, that I doubt whether the acts of bankruptcy will
support the commission. I will read the petitions and
the affidavits this evening, and give you my opinion
to-morrow morning, for it is a matter of great con-
sequence that it should be immediately known whe-
ther the commission is to be upheld or not.
Further consideration postponed.
ASSIZES.—CHELMSFORD, JULY so.
OYSTER AND SOLE FISHERIES.
THE KING V. WILLIAM SUTTON AND OTHERS.
This was a case which excited a good deal of inte-
rest. It was an indictment against four London
Fishermen, named William Sutton, Edward Fresh-
water, Arnold Freshwater, and William Sloper, for
unlawfully taking two pecks of oysters, and oyster
brood, from the oyster layings of the Burnham River
Company, on the 17th of June last, by means of al
certain instrument called a traul, contrary to the
form of the Statute made in the 31st of the king,
for the better protection of the several oyster fisheries
siithing this kingdom.
The prosecution was conducted at the instance of
the Burnham Oyster Company, by Mr. GURNEY,
Mr. ANDREWS, and Mr. BRODRIEK ; and the defence
at the instance of the Corporation of the City of
London, by the COMMON SERJEANT, Mr. BOLLAND,
and Mr. JesSOPi.,
The object of this proceeding was to determine
the right of the London Fishermen to traul for soles
,vster grounds of the prosecutors;
that the operation of trauling was
roung oysters and oyster spat, the
invent with a good deal of iron
purpose of dragging along the
and catching soles, and thereby
same time, as was alledged, a
;oung oysters, which would be
ht oithe machine. It was proved
defendants, on the 17th of June

t
iiupontn.ibuet
nloghul
troeichet eed
,Oyytohst!
s
trawl being an instru
work, made for the
bottom of the sea, ar
• destroying, at the s
great quantity of y
crushed by the weigh
in this case that the