The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-12-18 00:00:00

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-TUESDAY

(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
WRIGHT AND COMPANY'S BANKRUPTCY

This being the day appointed for the choice of assignees in
the bankruptcy of Wright and Co., bankers, of Henrietta-
street, Covent-garden, there was a considerable attendance
of anxious creditors, but their number was limited in conse-
quence of an advertisement which appeared in all this morn-
ing's papers, from Few and Hamilton, the solicitors to the
fiat obtained on the 26th November last, upon the petition
of Mr. Pett Cobbett, stating that that fiat had been super-
seded, and that the " meeting for the choice of assignees
would not take place." The debts and liabilities are esti
mated at from £700,000 to £BOO,OOO, and the assets to
something like half a million, exclusive of Mr. Biddulph's
large landed property. Among the creditors are the Duke
of Norfolk for £54,000, Lord Petre about £15,000, and there
is scarcely a Catholic college or chapel in the kingdom which
has not had large funds deposited with the bankrupts, who
are also trustees for many Catholic charities, and other reli-
gious establishments.

- Mr. Hamilton, who opened the fiat, came into court
shortly after twelve o'clock, the hour originally appointed
for the meeting, and expectation was on tiptoe to hear some
explanation offered as to the reasons for postponing the
meeting, or the grounds upon which the fiat had been super-
seded, but not a word was said by the learned gentleman.
In about half an hour afterwards, Mr. France, of the firm
of France and Palmer, solicitors, (and who are said to repre-
sent deposit creditors to the amount of £98,000, and as such
could have carried the choice of assigness), addressed the
court, stating that several creditors, who were his clients,
were anxious to prove their debts, and proceed at once to the
choice of assignees ; but he had been informed that the fiat
was superseded, and he wished to know officially if that were
so or not?

The learned Commissioner said, that the fact of the annul-
ment of the fiat had been officially communicated to the
court, but he knew nothing more about it.

Mr. France begged to know if any grounds had been stated
for superseding the fiat ?
The learned Commissioner said, none. An order from the
Court of Review had been served upon this court, stating the
fact of its having been superseded ; but no ground was stated
upon which such a decision had been obtained. However, in
order that the creditors should be in possession of all tha
court knew upon the subject, he would direct the registrar to
read the order of the Court of Review.

Mr. France said he felt obliged to the learned commissioner,
but he did not wish to trouble the registrar to read the order,
as he was satisfied at hearing officially that the fiat was super-
seded. _ .

who attended with an affidavit of debt from a
client who resided in Wales, wished to know if it were neces-
sary to have a fresh affidavit in consequence of the fiat hav-
ing been superseded ?.

The learned Commissioner said that that affidavit formed
no part of the proceedings, and therefore could not be used.
The Solicitor observed thatt the affidavit was made before
the order of the Court of Review had been issued.

The learned Commissioner thought a fresh affidavit would

be necessary

The Solicitor.—lt has been suggested to me, sir, that un-
der the terms of the order of the Court of Review, we are
entitled to the costs in making a fresh affidavit.

The learned Commissioner.--That is not within my juris-
diction. I know not why the fiat was superseded; for,
as far as the proceedings go, all was regular upon the face of
them. My duty is to obey the order.