Star.
London, England, 1827-11-17 00:00:00

Li* itria*.idEtei

1.
COUNT OF COANcERY4 Kireasslas
tronnti4l4 EDGERS., •
The Court was occupied in heating Mr. Ph&
,th'e point, whether an Order foricerly pride
konsent of the parties ht this cavil shobld- be
or not ?
At 12 o'clock the Li oifir CstAid ti.olrsise
the Privy CpUncil, a; ii? the Ricortfeei. report to
bp made. His Lordship said he had listfteclettentively
to what Mr. Heald had urged, and es the'ttme of the
COust had already be'en taken up for several re- id
heAring irguments Upon a point wfs; in Fee
ought to have arisen, he thought head better
the affidavits and decide the matter.
Mr. KNIGHT wished to be heard.
His LORDSHIP said, then the motion this'
/ceded in on, Monday
COURT OF KlilGig. IRENCH, iVoribrviza,
30LARTIC AND OTHCRS V. HOG4N.
Lord Tzwritaberr delivered the ftidgnient
Courtin this case. The question, he said, was whether
certain bills 'of exchange, on which the plaintiffs '
brought their action, were tainted by mortar:
prevent them from !icing recovered upon ? They
been discounted by Alzedo, whose assignees 1
tiffs were, through the intervehtion bf a broker
name of Bramley, whb, heroic the time Of
them; had represented to Ailed°, that in consequence
of his hiving recommended to him (Alzedo)
persons, who had subsequently failed, and Cie
cello a considerable loss, he felt himself under
wary obligation to make good to him ,ffie '
be had so sustained. Bramley said that he
made good that loss immediately, if he had
but as he was not, the mode of payment whi_
posed was, that Alzedo should go on discounting _
for him on the same terms as before, and should deduct
1 per cent. from their amount in liquidation
corer,' debt, he (Bramley) not deducting
smut. from those who employed him, but pa:
to them the whole amount of their bills, mines
mission and the usual discount of 5 per
Lordship likewise said, that on the trial he
to the Jury to decide, whether they thought s.
ley felt himself under an honorary oblig,stion
charge the debt, intimating that if they were
that he did, the bills were not tainted with
the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. The
a verdict for the plaintiffs. A new trial was is.
ata the ground that he (Lord Tenterden) bad
to intimate such an opinion to the Jury, and
• 'nion. moreover was incorrect. He was,
titer review of the evidence, still inclined to
likamley felt himself under an honorary obligation
Alzedo, the bills were not tainted with tisur- -
ootwithstanding he had intimated such an
the Jury, in which he was happy to say that
Learned Brothers but one considered him correct,
u he bad left the whole question open for decision,
Court could not consent to seeaside the verdict'
chilly as the penal consequences to the plaintiffs
so severe, supposing the usury to be established.
verdict must therefore be maintained, and the
charged.

CROESKIELD AND OTHERS V. RANKIN AND .
• This was an action brought by the assignees
individual named Hadwen, late a banker at
against the defendants, to recover the sum
alleged to have been illegally placed to the
the Bank. It appeared that Riley was in
doing business with Hadwen, the banker,
separate account at thi Bank, as well a; a joint
as the partner of Rankin., On Sunday, ►`
January, 1826, a meeting of the friends of
was held, for the purpose of looking into ,
his affairs, and with a view to ascertain whether
it would be necessary for. him to suspend
They came to the decision, that he ought at
to go on during the following Monday, as
expectation of receiving a very large remit':
Monday night, from London. On Monday
the bank shut at the usual hour of three o
between four and five o'cl,:ck Rankin went
and produced an order from Riley to the
transfer a sum of 3,00 W. from his private
his joint account with Rankin. This was accor,
done. The next morning Hadwen became a r
Riley then appeared to be a creditor of the
the joint concern of Rankin and Riley to be ,
ably in its debt. This was therefore the reason
led to the order to make the transfer. An -
subsequently brought againit Messrs. Rankin
by the assignees under the commission of bal
to recover the sum of 3,0001. on the grout-
transfer was made in the contemplation of
bankruptcy, and for the purpose of giving
Rankin and Riley a preference over the °the
to the concern. The cause was tried at Lao'
fore Mr. Baron Hullock, and a verdict for the
was recorded, the Jury considering that the tr-
,been made in the contemplation of bankrupt
Mr. BROUGHAM had obtained a rule to ,
why this verdict should not be set aside,
trial granted, on the ground that the transfer
voluntary preference given by the banker, but
banker was bound to follow the directions of r
that if he had refused so to do, he might ha,
rested by Riley. There had, consequentl:
fraudulent preference. •
The ATToRNET.GCNERAL, with whom Wa..
TISON, now appeared to shew cause against
and contended, that the act of bankruptcy
templation at the time the transfer was made
the application for such transfer was not
after the usual hour of closing the bank,
actually.closed at the time ; the letter containim
application being dated after such usual hour, n
it more than probable that Messrs. Riley and
were well aware of the circumstances that •
about to take place. They had, therefore,
expect to be placed in a better light than the
ditors or debtors to the concern, or to take shelter
a preference which had been decided by a 7
fraudulent. They grounded their arguments
fact, that on the evening of Monday a letter I-
sent off to London, that a docket might be
which letter must have been written about
which the application of Riley to make the transfer
been produced at the bank.

Mr. BROUGHAM, with whom was Kr. PARg,
to support the Rule, and argued that the right
to direct the transfer was unquestionable; if
had refused to obey the order, a writ might .
issued against him. It was clear that much door
have existed on the Monday, at the hour when
plication was made, on the mind of ti e banker
whether he should be obliged to suspend pa,
not. This was rendered the more probable, -
fact, that the bankruptcy was not a bad bankrui
the bankrupt having already paid a dividend
in the pound. They contended that the transfer
not a fraudulent preference, but had been nude •
the contemplation of bankruptcy.
Lord Titeraanse thought that on the whole