Star.
London, England, 1828-01-12 00:00:00

-1-v

Ar^n'"!TwP^rwM,P

- :; • .•

•
. LAW INTELLIGENCr
COUret OF CIIINCP.Itt, Jainfaay tt. ,
IA NE WM I TAKER AND t
The Argun! rot w Lich was commeiZe.l yesterdaron
petition present d in this miter was resumed tri-day.
Mr. ;,:ocnasi was heard in 01,P0sition to the pesiti
which was presented by separate creditors of the
rupt, clairning..to be entitled to prove aga nst the
estate. It appeared that a firm, consi..ting r.l Botton,
Whittaker, and 11!adnell, carried on the busiaess
music sellets, io. St. Paul's Chutch-YafJ, for sew
i ears. By various arrangements between the parties,
term undery ent certain alterations. and at lengt'
tirst and last of the partners withdrew; a Mr. M,
was admit.e4 as a partner, and the busiaess was c.
on by Mr. Whittaker for the benefit of himself
Maddox, under the firm of Whittaker add Co. but
Maddox took no part in the busine.s, and resided at
A commission of bankrupt was sdbsequently take,
and the jo nt estate of Whi taker and Maddox,
.iable to the payment of their joint debts, produ,
a sum rf 4,0001. which was now ready to be
buted. That distribUtirn would long ago have
place, but for the obstacles which had been darn
the way of a settlement, by the attempts of the
tors in the private estate of Whittaker to make the
estate available in satisfacticn of their demani
ors:er to effect this, they first disputed the pattnl
and then claimed that if the partnership did r call
they were entitled to make the produce of the e
common stock, and to share with the joint cis
The Counsel argued that this claim was wholly
founded, and that the evidence of Mr. Whittaker, wt.
had been given in a manner most creditahleto hituseli
.sod perfec ly sstisfactory to the assignees a-d•coe-
sionets, clearly established the t attire of the p.
shiir between him and Mr. Maddox, and the tar
the joint estate was liable only-to the joint debti
PEPVS and Mr. JAMES were heard on the
-ide, and contended that the partnership was
nature, owing to Mr. Maddox never having a 1
in it, that the separate as well as joint creditor
entitled to share in the common produce of the
The LORD CHANCELLOR desired to have the
and other papers handed up to him. He woui
hem this evening, if he could, and would give jur
tomorrow in on Mondry.
IN THE MATTER OF HAWES, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. WRIGHT stated the petition of Thomas W,
partner of the bankrupt, the object of which
supersede the commission. The ground's alleged
that the petitioner was engaged in partnership
bankrupt in the music trade, and that under a
cc-partnership the profits of that trade wet e div
five shares, of which he (the petitions) was ts
three, and the bankrupt two. That some time
year 1826, some differences arose between them,
sioned, as it was alleged, by the bankrupt
himself entitled to a larger share of the profits than
reserved to hem under the deed. Ile c nsequently
proposed to the petitioner tither to sell him his shares,
or to buy those of the petitioner. This offer it did not
suit the petitioner to accede to, and he declined it. The
petitioner stated, that the proposition had been repeated
to him in various forms, and, among othi rs, by a letter
from the bankrupt's aunt ney, Mr. 80l on, who ;fated,
m reova, that if it should not be accepted, Mr.
H ivies was resolved to relea e himself from the
pa tnership ; but whether by me ins of a bill in Chan-
cery, or by some other' method, could not be then lote-
seen. It was alleged that NI,. Hawes afterwards, in
conversation with Mr. Power, the music seller, in the
S rand, and several other persons, bad. unequivocally
stated that he should become bankrupt. Some time
afterwards, the petitioner not having accepted the offer,
a commission of bankrupt was issued against Mr.
Hawes, at the instance of Mr. Hodges, who appeared
as the cetitioning• creditor, and the proceedings were
taken by Mr. Bolton, Hawes's attorney. Upon these
ciicuinstanees taken together, the petitioner charged,
and his Counsel argued, that there was evidence of the.
commission having been concerted solely for the pur-
pose of putting an end to the copait." r,hiF, • and that
therelete it ought to be superseded. It apt eared that
an indictment had been pre,erred en the same grounds,
but having been removed by ctrtiorati to the C,,tirt of
King's Bench, it had not yet been laird. Mr. Wright
commented upon the affidavits at great
The LOUD CHANCELLOR said the question appeared
to him to be one which it was impossible for him to de-
cide. It appeared clearly, from the statement which
had been made, that the facts were such as would re-
quire a minute inquiry arid investigation. The affida-
rid; were conflicting, and the accouct given by dare-
tent persons of the same transaction varied so much,
that it would be impossilie to ieconciie them with each
f ther, and a hopeless task for Lint to atteuipt to elicit
horn them the real state of the case. He was, of course,
willing to hear all chit was to be said on the subject ;
but he ras strongly disposed to think that it n.O t at
last be retelied to the decision of a Jury, before %%town
the several withusses on Loth sides in ght be emu-
elallto ed.
Mr. Twlss opposed the petition. He stated the sub-
stance of the affidavits of the bankrupt and his Attorney,
which denied ad concert. Ti.e bankrupt stated that his
affairs were such as rendered the bankruptcy necessary,
and that it was,nut resorted to fr.r the purposealleged
in the pet tida. His Attorney swede that the letter al-
luded to was not written by him, hut by one of his
cle.ks, although it had his sanction, and denied that
the words which had be. a voted meant to threaten
the petitioner with the hansiuptcy which had since
taken place. He explained, also, the circumstance of
his being the Attorney suing put the commission, by
the fact of his having been employed by Mr. Hodges,
Ate petitioning creditor, on viol- us other occasions.
The affidavit of Mr. Posee;, Mr. Twiss thought, might
have been mistaken, be,attse that Gentleman being an
ltishman, might have niade a mistake common to his
countrymen; aad when he represented Mr. Hawes ati
saying " 1 will be made a bankrupt," he meantao state
that he said " I shaP be made a bankrupt."
The LORD CHANCELLOR sAid that explanation, how-
aapbpalnykrupt," and
to this case,
e
fteolvlerertsieplausible
that:rent
expression
might ries. ts
ad I will beci dcno,annits t
altered
whether
the
"shall" or" will" were used.
His
"rd
Lordship soon afterwar,ds interrupted Mr. Twiss
in hs argument, telling him he was obliged to rise,
which he did at three o'clock.
lock.' .•

The Officer. of the Scots Greys, at present sta!ioned
in Clonmel, Ireland, have established- a private theatre there; the
plays hive been attended by all the Nubility and-Gentry of t►e
tieighbourhood.
BACICNILY COACHUEV.— It IS 'generally held that a.
hackney coachman is not puni.iiab!e for &mending
more than his fare, unless he actually toles the money.
UpOn reference to the origin3l Act of Parliament, a
coachman has been fined 21s. at the Police Office, Bow .
Street, for demanding more than his fate, though it was
not given to him at the time.

r ,
-rnt,7
0)11 a
clot.ion.
r bank-
joint
14t.0n,
ness of
several
les, this
gth the
carried
Ind Mr.
out Mr.
abroad.
ken out,
, being
.educed
distri-
: taken
.own in
e credi-
he joint
ids, In
lerbbip ;
U exit,
ettecrl a
!editors.
oily un-
r, which
himself.
:ornmis-
t‘Pa
. cc. t that
oe other -
of that
tppearsd
On were
esta.e.
he deeds
luld read
udgment
'T.
Welch, a
I was to
ged were
with-the
a deed of
tided into
to receive
me in the
em, OCCa•
thinking
than was