Star.
London, England, 1827-05-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Mar Hr.
EX PARTE JONES, IN THE MATTER OP SIZJS AND CO.'S
BANKRUPTCY.
Mr. MONTAOU appeared in support of a Petition
which had been presented, praying the- order of the
Court, that a certain quantity of stock standing in the
books of the Bank of England in the name of Mr. Sikes,
one of the partners, in the firm of Sikes, Snaith, and Co.
bankers, against whom a commission had issued, might
he transferred io the petitioner, the csstui que trust.—
There was no question of the justice and expediency of
such an order, he observed, according to the principles
of equity, although formerly great difficulty had been
felt on similar applications, owing to the doubts which
the Court entertained as to their power over such cases.
The 79th section of the late Bankrupt Act, however, had
removed all such doubts, and gave the Court a summary
power, the exercise of which he now prayed, and that
the assignees of Sikes and Co. might be directed to join in
the transfer, or disclaim all right to the stock in question.
Mr. liontra opposed the motion, on the ground that
the assignees would incur some responsibility as con-
nected with the trusts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered the transfer to se
made as prayed, the stock remaining subject to the saint
trusts as before the bankruptcy.
IN THE MATTER OP STEPHEN LAWRZNCIL
Mr. MONTAGU, who had moved on a former day for
a habeas corpus on behalf of this bankrupt, who had
been committed by the Commissioners to Bristol Gaol
for not giving satisfactos y answers in his examination
before them, now moved that the bankrupt should be
discharged, on the pound that the commitment did not
contain the whole of- the questions and answer; pat to
the bankrupt, andfio respect of which he bad been sent
to prison.
The return to the writ was then ordered to be read.
but it was not forthcoming, and it was ascertains{
that the gaoler, who was in Court, had made no return
to the writ.
Mr. MONTAGU then contended that the prisoner was
entitled to be-discharged for this default of return.
The Loan CHANCELLOR thought that if no retorts
was made to a writ by virtue of which a prisoner was
brought up, he ought to be discharged.
The gaoler proposed to make an immediate return;
and the case was ordered to stand over a short time for
this purpose.
About an hour afterwards the case was mentioned
again, a return having in the meantime been made.
Mr. Rosa opposed the prisoner's discharge, and con-
tended that the 39th section of the Act, which gave to
the Court a power of inspecting the whole of the weal.
nation. enabled it to supply the deficiency which kg
admitted existed in the warrant of commitment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the pro-
iso to which the Counsel had referred was inserted for

the benefit of the prisoner, and did not abrogate the
previous part of thy clause, which required the commit-
ment to state the whole of questions and answers.—
He thought that as this had not been done here, the pri-
soner ought to be discharged.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Mar 19.
TONKIN/ C. WRIGHT:
Mr. MARRYAT she wed•cause against a rule obtained
by the Attorney-General, for a new trial. The point
was, Whether the following memorandum produced at
the trial, on unstamped paper, was a receipt, anal as such
required a stamp a—" Mr. Tomkins has left in my hands
2001." Mr. Marryat argued that it did not require a
stamp, because it was not given" in payment, discharge,
or satisfaction of any previous debt. It had been de-
cided, that on an 1. 0. U. no stamp was necessary, be-
cause it was a mere acknowledgment of a debt, and that
a number of unstamped 1.0.U.'s had even sustained a
commission of bankrupt.
The A TTORSIXT-GittiltAL on the other side, contended
that a stamp was necessary. It was an accountable
receipt; and there was an exemption in the Stamp Act
in favour of the Bank of England, and of bankers, which
'hewed that accountable receipts from all other persons
required a stamp. Lord Kenyon used to say, the Revenue
Acts were grants from the public, and IP be construed
strictly against them.
Lord Tastratusau;—This paper does not mem to us
to require a stamp. I do n6t quite agree with Lord
Kenyon, that the Revenue Acts are to be construed
hardly against the public. The section of the Stamp
Act requiring stamps upon receipts of money mentions
any note, memorandum, or writing, for money paid,
settled, balanced. or otherwise discharged and satisfied i
but, I do not think that a receipt for money to be ac-
counted for does require a stamp. It was natural for
the Bank of England, and for bankers, to be desirous
to have all doubts removed, and to get an exemption ;
but without it, I should not have judged them liable to
a stamp on accountable receipts.—Rule for a new trial
discharged.
THE CITY OZCHESTZR CORPORATION.
Mr. TAUNTON moved for a rule to thew cause why an
iglormatioo, in the nature of a quo warrant°, should not
at issued, calling upon Mr. Larkin to chew by what
authority be held the office of Mayor of the city of
Chester. He also made a similar application against
the Sheriff, two of the Aldermen, and a Common
Councilman of the city. It was not made adversely,
but on account of the judgment of ouster, either already
signed, or about to be signed, against Mr. Harrison,
who held the office of Mayor of the city in 182.5, in con-
sequence of the trial of an information at Shrewsbury
during the last Assizes. The adverse patty had made
a similar application at the Court of Great Sessions, and
a rule had been granted, although the Court expressed
considera le doubts of their jurisdiction. Cause could
not he .hewn on that rule until the Autumn Great Ses-
sions, and the information would not probably be filed
till long after, so that the city would be kept in hot
water for a considerable period, and toe,' it might even-
tually be found that all the proceedings w ere corms
non judice.
Justice BAYLZY.—I believe recoveries are suf-
fered, and criminals are ti led in the county of the City
of Chester, and not in Cheshire.
Mr. TAusToa.—They ale, my L'rd.
Lord Tzwranoash—Take a rule to shear cause.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Mar 19.
After taking a few justifications of bail, the Court
disposed of several rules for new trials, none of which
embraced questions of any public interest. In one of
the cases, however, the plexchngs had been extended to
great length, upon which the Lord Chief Justice took
occasion to remark, in severe terms, on the abuses which
'had arisen in this Court in the special pleadings. In the
present instance, his Lordship observed, that what
might have been clearly and plainly stated in the
breadth of a man's hand, was rendered confused anil
unintelligible by bcingspiead over twenty-four folios.—

r This practice was most abominable, and lie should cer-
tainly take some decided step to chock an evil a hick ap-
peared to beans. rapiilly gaining ground, and which was
frequently the cause of creating much confusion.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAT 19.

THACICRAH V. THORNTON.

This was an action upon a contract, in which-the de-
fendant, 41 in consideration of 101. and 7,5001. received
by him from the plaintiff, bound himself to pay to the
plaintiff 10,0001. or such proportion of that amount
(say 10,0001.) as the firm of Hunter and Co. should pay
to their general legal creditors."—The Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 10,0001.
The Cover was now moved on behalf of the defend-
ant, to set aside the verdict, or arrest the judgment, on
the ground that although the firm of llunter and Co.
had paid more than 10,0001. to their creditors, there waa
a large portion of their debts for which they had only
given security; and as the meaning of the contract, as
they contended, was, that the defendant was to pay the
plaintiff a sum which bore the same proportion to
10,0001. which that which the firm of Hunter and Co.
paid their creditors bore to all their debts (and security
not being payment), the plaintiff was not entitled to a
verdict for 10,0001. To this it was replied, on the part
of the plaintiff, that the obvious and only construction,
which the words of the contract admitted was, that the
defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff so much of the
sum of 10,0001. as the firm of Hunter and Co. should
pay of that amount to their creditors; and that it had no
reference whateier to the general amount of their debts.
The Court adopted the latter view of the case ; and
therefore refused to disturb the verdict, or arte-t the
j ads went.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

A master•butcher to Fleet-market, of the sense of Wieser, ap-
peared before Mr. Alderman Assure, on Saturday, upon a 'om-
inous. to Mower the cemplaint of Alr.WaU, a respectable inhabitant
of Fetter-lane.-11ae complainant stated that be was passing along
the side of Fleet-market, on Thursday afternoon, accompanied by
his Lady, when be met the defendant, coming in a contrary direc-
tion in a state of drunkenness, and as he passed them he committed
an indecent assault ipso the Lady. The complainant remonstrated,
bat to littkpurpooe, as the defendant immediately repeated his
brutal conduct. Witness again complained, and received a severe
blow from the defendant in return, upon which be seised h 1 ,nod
ascertained who be was.
Far. Weaver' in reply, said he was very much intoxicated—se
meek so, that positively he knew nothing of what had occurred
nada he was informed the next morning by his friends.
And when you was so informed, said the. Alderman, why did
you not go to the Gentleman, and apologise for your shameful
conduct ? Your plea of intoxication will serve you but little, I can
assure you.
Mr. 'fattier regretted that what the Alderman had suggested did
not mom to him. lie was ready to apologise to thg Gentleman
now, and was really sorry for his ill behaviour.
Mr. Aldermap Assure—Well, Sir, It rests with the Gentleman
whether he will have you committed for the assault, or accept your
Icontrition, if accompanied by a contribution to some charity.
The complainant said. he would be contented with the apology
If Mr. Weaver would give sa. to the Mendicity Society in treed.

The Alderman reined, that it wee eastsimary to send melt
donations to the gebool of the parish or ward where the Wow is
einursitted.

The defendant demurred a little to the amount of the smart money
demanded; but the Alderman hisdng. that he felt a Wrong Melina.
thin to end bias to the Sessions, where he want probably be ars-
taxed to three menthe' bnpriesmnent, Mr. Weaver produced the
sash, which the complainant relocated to be applied in the master
recommended by the Magistrate.
DOW.STRIEWT.

Follolllr.—Saturday evening & respectable tooling man was
placed at the bar, charged with forging the ligament of Mrs. Rs.
chael Rumpling to a bill of exchange. After some evidence was
gone into to prove that it was not Mrs. Renaming% handwriting,
Sir Rtcaaaa Bruns said it was a charge of a IlaillitlefieliSallaWit,
and the prisoner's liar would be most assuredly far/dted.
Mrs. ltanuniefs said it was against her will to Fresco:ate.
Sir Moulin ordered die miaow to be remanded dA Tuesday.
when other witnesses were to attend.
- - -

Just as the prisoner was about to be removed from tbe bar,
Mr. Edward Temple, principal desk to Messrs. Davenport,
manufacturers of china and glass ware, in Fleet-street, stepped Con
ward, and said that he bad upwards of thirty charges of etobeasb.
meat against the prisoner, who had same time back been in their
employ as town traveller. It was his duty to collect money,
and render to Mot au account daily of what be received. Mr.
Temple now produced two receipts in the priemaer's handwriting,
one for the aunt of 61.75. Cd. received from a Mr. Ibbetson •' and
another rot 0.125. for which he bad never accounted. They had
many more charges against the prisoner, and lad bog been looking
out for hint.—The prisoner said nothing in kin defence, and was
remanded until Tuesday.
H A TTON- G AR DEN.

Saturday a young man of poteel exterior, in the service of Messrs.
Hicks of Dean, Gray's Inasquare, was charged by bis employers
with making Woe and ekaggerated Manisa monies paid bjkim to
various public Journal, for advertisements, ate- and with appro-
priating the overplas to his own use. Only three oat of a great
oninher doses having been as yet fully established, the prisoner
was remanded for one week.