Star.
London, England, 1821-11-30 00:00:00

LAW tkittirbutt.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 2
The LORD CHANCELLOR having declaked his inten-
tion to sit every ciny after Term (which ended yester
day) until the next Seal, his Lordship accordingly
came into Court this morning at ten o'clock. In con-
sequence, however, of the Petition in the matter of
Howard and Gibbs's bankruptcy being to be dis-
cussed in the Vice-Chancellor s Court, the attendance
of Counsel was very thin. Several causes having been
called on, and the Counsel concerned being absent,
The LORD CHANCELLOR at length observed, that,
in order to accommodate the suitors of the Court, he
had appointed the time intervening between the last
day of Term and the ensuing Seal to the hearing of
Bankrupt Petitions. It appeared, however, that his
wish to get through the bankrupt petitions was likely
to be defeated in consequence of the other branch of
the Court having appointed to hear a bankrupt peti-
tion in the matter of Howard and Gibbs on that day.
An application had been made to him to hear th tt
petition before the other bankrupt petitions already
in the paper, but he had refused to do so because it
did not appear that there was any ground far the
application, except that the case was connected with
great names. He did not suppose, when he refused
to hear the petition out of its turn, that it would have
been fixed for discussion that day in the other Court,
the effect of which was to deprive him of the attend-
ance of almost all the Counsel. His Lordship con-
cluded by directing the Registrar to strike out of the
paper every petition in which Counsel did not appear
when it was called on.
At two o'clock the LORD CHANCELLOR rose in
order to leave the Court, and all the Gentlemen of
the Bar rose also, as usual on such occasions, when
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he could not
avoid again stating his disappointment at the re-
markable want of attention displayed towards the
Court on that morning. He felt it extremely ; all he
would say was, that all the suitors, or their Solicitors
and Counsel, should in future attend the Court, or
their cases would be struckout inconsequenceol neglect.
Mr. Maus observed, that it was not likely that
his Lordship's regulations would in future be so little
attended to. Several Gentlemen belonging to the
Bar, who had been in the habit of practising in the
Court of the Master of the Rolls, had relinquished
their attendance in that Court, in order to have greater
facilities in their attendance on his Lordship.
The LORD CHANCELLOR." I beg to be understood
as not casting reflections on any Gentlemen of the
Bar, nor on any class of Gentlemen belonging to it,
as having been guilty of any breach of respect towards
me. Few men are less solicitous respecting that matter
than myself; but I would ask any Gentleman, be he
a friend or not a friend (and I hope that there is no
Gentleman among you who entertains a hostile feel-
ing towards me), if it is fitting that I, after having
given so long a notice, should, on coming into Court,
hnd neither Solicitors nor Counsel in attendance ?
As long as 1 have the honour of holding the Great
Seal of England, I owe it to my Sovereign, who has
entrusted me with the care of it—l owe it to my suc-
cessors (I care not about myself) to take care that the
office of Lord Chancellor shall not be treated with
neglect or disrespect. I have often submitted to
such treatment ; 1 regretted it: I regret it now more
than ever; but depend upon it I shall submit to it
no longer."
His Lordship then left the Court, evidently under
the impression of strong feelings.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 29.
IN RE HOWARD AND GIBBS, BANKRUPTS.

His HONOUR was occupied all day in hearing argu-
ments
for and against a change of assignees under
the second commission issued forth in this bankruptcy.
On one side it was contended that Mr. Carroll and
Mr. Duff should be removed from being the assignees
of the bankrupts' estate, because Mr. Carroll had
large claims on the bankrupts- independent of those
which he had been allowed to prove under this com-
mission ; because the bankrupts had issued circulars,
and otherwise solicited the creditors to vote for par-
ticular assignees (at all events under the first com-
mission); because one of them had even employed
threats to a Mr. Bridges, a saddler in the Haymarket,
and a creditor, to induce him to vote in a particular
way in the choice of assignees, or not at all; and be-
cause, as was alleged, only creditors to the amount
of £34,000 had voted for assignees, and there was a
list of creditors, whose debts amounted to £16,000
more, who had never voted.
On the other hand, it was contended, that Mr.
Carroll, having been allowed to prove his debt, and
having been regularly chosen assignee by the great
bulk of the creditors who had voted, could not be
removed without some mismanagement being proved
to have taken place on his part respecting the bank-
rupts estate; that the bankrupts, being greatly inte-
rested that their estate should not be unduly wasted,
had a right to solicit votes from the creditors for the
choice of such assignees as were most likely to ma-
nage their estate best for the advantage both of the
creditors and of the bankrupts ; and it was denied
that any intimidation had been used by the bankrupt
alluded to (Gibbs) towards Mr. Bridges, to influence
his vote in the choice of assignees.
The Court came to no decision on the various
matters submitted to it.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 29.
BRADLEY D. GWYNNE, ESQ. AND ANOTHER.
In this case, a late Sheriff of London and Middle-
sex was nominally the defendant. The real defen-
dant was one of his officers, named Vorley. The ac-
tion was brought under the following circumstances:
—The plaintiff was an upholsterer at the west end of
the town, and about two years ago, having become
embarrassed in his circumstances, he determined to
assign his property over to his creditors, and his stock
was valued accordingly. The valuation amounted
to about £4OO : circumstances, however, arose,
which prevented the assignment being executed, and
soon afterwards two executions, one for £lB, the
other for titil, were put into the house, and Vorley
was employed to levy. This he did most effectually,
sweeping away everything upon the premises. The
goods were divided into sixty-nine lots, preparatory
ito their being sold. Twenty-eight lots were sold, and
reproducedturned:
this sufficienthowteovcecr7hrethreeftuwseodexteco executions, and
aunpd.
application was made to Vorley to have the remainder
wards of two months. At the expiration of that
time; be returned a part; but refused to give up the