Star.
London, England, 1827-12-06 00:00:00

EX PARTZ HOPKE IN RE EMIR BROTHER 3 AND CO.

His Honour gave judgment in this case, which was
argued during the last term.
The facts of the case were these:—Hopke was a mer-
chant residing at Oporto, and Butler, Brothers, and
Co. were his agents. On one occasion the plaintiff sent
;over as: order to his agents to purchase him a quantity
cliron when the priceof that metal should be at a cer-
lain sum per ton; and enclosed two bills, one for 7001.
and the other for 2001. to pay for the same. This pur-
chase was never made, and Messrs. Butler, Brothers,
and Co. in writing to the plaintiff to informhim of their
inability to execute his order, said they would hold the
Mits., which had been intended for the purchase of the
iron, for his use. Messrs. Butler, Brothers, and Co.
became bankrupts, and their assignees refused to deliver
up these bills to Messrs. Hopke, declaring this transac-.
tion to be a part of the general along. dealings between
Hopke and the bankrupts.--
His Houotra said, that he had looked• over all the
cases which the Counsel had cited in their arguments,
end bad carefully considered, as well the case "espalier
Sergeant," as the principles which had been laid doves,
in the ease'd 'the Leeds and Wakefield 'Banks. He
tound that all-these decisions had been regulated either
by the nature of the contract subsisting between the par-
ties or by the character of their dealings, or by the di.
tedious With which remittances were accompanied.
After reviewing very fully the (actg• of the case,. his
Honour said that when he considered that these bills
were destined for a particular purpose, and that the
bankrupts perfectly understood this, as was clear from
the expression in their letter, „that they would hold
the bills fur Mr. Hopke's use," he was of opinion that the

prayer of the petition most be granted, and that the bills
must be delivered up to Mr. Hopke. .

MOTION TO COMMIT AN ATTOANILT. •

Mr. Parts moved that an attorney named Reynolds
should be committed, for not having brought into
Court certain papers connected with a cause before
his Hcuour, and actually necessary for the prosecution
of the suit.

Mr. BIZICZNSTETH opposed the motion. It was not'
at aU called for, and it was ogectly.irregular. Mr.
Reynolds had a lien upon the papers. and had not yet
been able to make out his bill of costs. Has Honour
knew very well that, from the very nature of the burl
ness of a solicitor in large practice, it often required a
long time to snake out a bill of costs. n. Mr. Reynold.
had no wish to put the clients of his Learned Friend to
inconvenience. The delay that had taken place was
unavoidable, and it was not the practice of the Court to
resort to such harsh measures as that now prayed, under
circumstances like those btfore the Court.

The- Vice CHANCELLOR agreed with Mr. Bickerstetb.
The better way to proceed in this case would perhaps
be, for Mr. Reyoolds to pay.the costs of this application,
and for the Court to make au order that, in a certain
time—a month for instance.—Mr. Reynolds should de:
liver up the papers on payment of. his bill of costs. end
that he should stand committed if he neglected to
comply with the terms of the order.
Mr. Pane did not feel inclined to adopt this course,
end chose rather to have his motion dismissed with costs.
THE ASSIONSIS OF 51R. ArEll POLE v: SPOTTISWOODE

The hearing of this case, which arises out of the
bankriptcy of Messrs. Hurst and Robinson, was fixed
-for to-day, but on it being tepresented to his Honour
'that the proceedings were not complete, it was allowed
to stand over until the next seal, on the parties under-
taking that no part of the stock of the bankrupts should
be di.posed of in the intetim, except in the regular
way of trade.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dsconza 5.
Before Lord Townson* and a Common Jury.
In a case which was tried on Monday last, on a bill
of exchange fur 80/. a verdict was taken for the plain-
tie, under the idea that a 35.6 d. stamp, on which it was
drawn, was the proper stamp for that sum.
The Comtism SIInGICANT this day made an applica-
tion to the Lord Chief Justice, to allow the judgment in
that case, which it had been agteed should be taken as
of last Term, to be postponed till the next. On the
trial the bill had been produced. He had asked on
what stamp it was drawn? The witness replied. "On
a three and siz•penny oae." His Learned Friend the
Attorney General immediately said, " Ohl that will
do well enough." Not doubting such high authority,
he had made no further inquiries ; but his clients had
since discovered that the bill was drawn on a wrong
stamp, the Act requiring that a bill for that amount
should be on a 45.6 d. stamp. .

Lord TENTERDEN—Did you ever know a new trial,
Mr. Common Sergeant, granted on such grounds as
those on which you are now founding sour application ?
The Cameo* SIIROS4NT gave no answer to the ques-
tion ; but repeated his application, pressing it upon the
ground that be had given up his objection, owing to
the declaration of the Attorney General that the stamp
would do well enough.
The ATTORNEY GIINIRAIe.4 made nb declaration—

I never SAW the bill.
Lord T*NTUDEN rejected the application, stating
that the objection to the stamp was an objection striegii,
juris, and ought to be taken at the trial. If it were not
taken than, the Court would not lend its aid to enable
it to be taken at a subsequent opportunity.