Star.
London, England, 1826-07-22 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Jci.r 21.
CONST V. HARRIS AND OTHERS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on coming into Court, said
it appeared to him that in this case, whatever might be
the decision as to the receiver's salary, there was nothing
to prevent the money in that Gentleman's hands being
forthwith paid into. Court.
Mr. MAL. said, thit the salary had been axed by the Master,
since the modem was first made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not know how the re-
ceiver of the profits of this Theatre could be. treated by
the Criutt differently from the receiver of any other
property. He-must -be bound by the same rules,. and
conform to the orders of the. Court, just as if the pro-
perty' was of the description ordinarily dealt with.
Mr. HZALD begged to inform his Lordship that there was no
ngrr any immediate question as to•the receiver's salary, because
the. Master had made his report an this head. • •
The- Loan. CHANCELLOR wished tad* furnished with
that report. The. question to be decided would then
appdAr to be, whether the receiver had or had
snot im-
properly applied the monies which bad come into his
possession. It was merely justice to Mr. Robertson (the
receiver) to explain, that there was no imputation of his
having made any improperuse of the monies, or having
improperly retained them for his own advantage; but
the allegation was, that he had applied them in some
manner which was not sanctioned by the orders of the
Court. He had felt great embarrassment in considering
the:terms of the decree which hatl.been pronounced by
his Honour the Vice Chancellor. It appeared to him
that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile
the terms of that decree with some of the orders which
had been made at other periods of the cause ; he would,
however, look at the report, with which he now re-
quested to be furnished, and consider the other points to
tehich he had alluded,and would mention the case again.
I NSOI.VgNT DEBTORS' COURT, JULY 21.
Frederick Aguilar, a young man of respectable ap-
pearance, who described himself as a medical student
and druggist, was opposed by four tradesmen, named
Manning, Salter, Whitson, and De Grange. He had
employed Mr. Mantling, who is a carpenter, to fit up a
shop for him in Pimlico, representing to him, at the
same time, that he was to receive 200004 out of Chan-
cery in afew weeks. Mr. Manning admitted, however,
that he had not been induced by this tepresentation, in
the first instance, to give the insolvent-credit, having
remarked to him that " matters in the Court of Chan-
cery were all a casualty." There was nothing, there
fore, in his case, to support his opposition to the insol-
vent's discharge.
Mr. Salter, a silversmith, of the Strand, from whom the insolvent
had obtained plate; Mr. Whitson, a tailor, of Regent-street ; and
a Ala. De Grange, who had furnished Aguilar with two or three
valuable watches, opposed the petition.
The insolvent, when examined in explanation by his
Counsel, Mr. WRATH, stated, that he was the son of the
gentleman whO had been mentioned ; that he had long
been walking the Hospitals, and was entitled to his
diploma ; that he had formerly been professionally en-
gaged in the isl 4nd of Jamaics, where he became
acquainted whh Miss Young, to whom he was married
.n Decembir last, at S :Luke s, Chelsea; and that when
be made the representations alluded to, he really be-
betted himself to be entitled to the property Ire bad
deltribed. The document now produced was the office
copy of the will relative to the West India property, and
was regularly attested by the Duke of Manchester,
!;overnor of Jamaica. The property was described as
wotth from 15,000/. to 20,0007. and he did not recollect
'laving even represented it as of a higher value. There
was a codicil to the will, and James Young, his wife's
-elation, intended to contest its validity. After some,
fcrther I mi tuition,
Mr. Harm addressed the Court on behalf of the insolvem.
Re CHIEF CONibIIssIONRR observed, that whatever,
might be the moral culpability of the insolvent's eon-
there was nothing proved in the three first CASCS
co bring him within the operation of the•penal clauses;
if the Act. But with regard to that of Mr. De
"range, the matter assumed a different complesion,!
.rid terms could 'scarcely be found strong enough to'
'::scribe the fraudulent Character of the insolvent's
t•itdust in that transaction. It was -clear that Mr.
Dv Grange had been defrauded of three valuable'
"ate ,e!, in the first instance..ishich he was afterwards]

ob!iged to redeem, preening that course to a public'
prosecution, the goods having, been applied to a different
purpose from that which had been alleged when they
were obtained. In the schedule, however, he observed
th it no notice was taken of property referred to in the
will, oor of the 1201. for which it was stated that effectil
belonging to the insolvent had been disposed of a short
time since. The schedule, therefore, must be amended*
before the Court pronounced its judgment.
The case was therefore adjourned to have the schedule amended.