The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-28 00:00:00

MORRIS V. BUTTERWORT II

This was an action to recover the costs of an action, which
had been instituted against the defendant and a person named
John Whitelegg, to recover the amount of a bill of exchange,
which purported to have been accepted by them.
Mr: Alexander and Mr. Green were for the plaintiff ; and
Mr. Martin for the defendant.'

It appeared that the bill in question was given to the plain-
tiff for £23 ; it was returned, whereupon an action was com-
menced against each of the acceptors, Butterworth and White-
Trie latter paid the bill and costs of the action against
himself, but Butterworth refused to pay the costs against him
on the ground that he had not accepted the bill.
The man Whitelegg was called, and he proved that he had
accepted the bill.
Mr. MARTIN said he had no question to put to the witness ;
but the learned JUDGE said he had.
In answer to questions from the JUDGE, Whitelegg said he
had accepted the bill, that Butterworth was not there, that
the bill' as not signed by Butterworth, or by any one on his
behalf, and that he knew nothing about it.

The JUDGE was about to ask him who had written the
name, but he said he should not, as it might criminate
himself.
Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the jury in indignant terms on
the conduct of the witness, contending that he was totally
unworthy of credit.
The JUDGE told the jury that the only question for their
consideration was, whether the defendant had accepted the
bill ? If they were satisfied of that point, they would return
a verdict for the plaintiff.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages one
shilling.
The JUDGE said, prima facie evidence of a forgery had
been given, and he was not sure whether he ought not to
commit. Where was the plaintiff?
Mr. Partington, the plaintiff's attorney, replied, that he
was not in court, and that he resided at Bing-house, near
Halifax.
The JUDGE desired the defendant, Butterworth, to stand
forward, and said be should send for a magistrate to take the
depositions.against Whitelegg. Sir Thomas Brancker shortly
afterwards came into court, and the learned judge explained
the circumstances to him. All the parties then went before
Sir Thomas and the depositions were taken.
71 ALL AND ()TILERS V. WALLACE.

The pleadings in this case were excessively long, occupying
thirty-two brief sheets.
Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. IroGGINs were for the plaintiffs ;
Mr. WIGUTMAN and Mr. -, for the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL said the question in this case would be
whether the plaintiffs, who were assignees of a person named
Taylor, who became bankrupt in 1839, or the defendant, were
entitled to the proceeds of certain goods which were in the
possession of the bankrupt at that time. Those goods were
sold, and they produced about £l2OO. Mr. Wallace, the
defendant, was a gentleman residing in the county of Dur-
ham, and about the spring 'of 1839 Taylor was engaged to
marry his daughter ; the marriage took place on the 'lst of
April, and Mr. Wallace lent his son £6OO, with which he
commenced business as a draper in Sunderland. In the

month of November followingk a warrant of attorney was
given by Taylor• to his father-in-law to secure that sum.
Taylor was not successful in business, and he was under the
necessity of bOrrowing money ; he borrowed money from two
or three banks, for which his father-in-law became security,
for which he received another warrant of attorney, dated the
4th of May, 1839. The father-in-law being in possession of
these two securities, the bankrupt, in the course of the same
month, assigned to him somepolicies of insurance, one upon
his life, and two against fire effected upon his stock. He
(the learned counsel) believed that these were accompanied
with an assignment of his book debts. One or two creditors,
towards the close of the year 1839, were pressing the bank-
rupt for money, when he threatened them that if they became
troublesome they would -find he was secure against their at-
tacks, and that the law, although sometimes an enemy, was
sometimes a friend. He gave other creditors a similar re-
ception, but at last, Mr. Robson, another creditor, issued
execution against him on the 3d of December. The bankrupt
resided in Sunderland, his father-in-law in Durham, and
Mr. Phillips, another gentleman, residing in Sunderland, who
had married a daughter of Mr. Wallace's, on hearing of the
execution, went to Durham and told Mr. Wallace what was
going on. The father-in-law immediately issued an execu-
tion and swept away everything. The sum of £l2OO was
made by the sale, and with that Mr. Wallace paid himself
and those to whom he was security, and now the other cre-
ditors might whistle fot their money. He (the learned counsel)
apprehended that these transactions- constituted a violation
of the bankrupt law. He quoted the 3d section of the act 6
- George IV., chapter 16, in support of this proposition, and
to show that the giving- of. the warrants' of attorney was of
itself an act of bankruptcy, and he concluded by detailing
the substance of the evidence he should produce.
The fiat in bankruptcy and evidence of the formal part of
the pleas having been put in, a number of admissions before
the commissioners in bankruptcy by the defendant were read.
Mr. Phillips, the person alluded to by the learned counsel,
was also called, and he confirmed the statements made in the
opening ,_ . . .

Mr. 'WIGHTmAN addressed .the jury. The question was
not whether there was a bona fide debt due to Mr. Wallace
upon his judgment, but whether he did not of himself put it
in execution, or at the instigation of the bankrupt ? It had
been distinctly proved that Mr. Phillips was the person who
urged him to it, and that the bankrupt had expressly refused
to go to Durham for that purpose. The learned counsel
strongly insisted that this was the true complexion of the
case.

Mr. WlnnTisAN, -after the Judge had summed up, and
before the jury consulted, contended that, by the act passed
in 1839. all bona fide executions before the issuing of the fiat
were good, provided the parties had no notice of the act of
bankruptcy.
Mr. CIRESSWELL contended that the giving of the warrant
of attorney was an act of bankruptcy, and that putting it in
execution was in defeazance of the law.

The JUDGE said the point was perfectly new, and he would
reserve it. His lordship then directed The jury to say vfliether
or not the defendants knew that the message to put the war-
rant of attorney into execution came from the bankrupt ?
The jury retired for consultation.
At nine o'clock the jury returned into court. The foreman
stated that they had found a verdict for the plaintiff, da-
mages £ll9O ; and they further found that the execution had
been procured by the contrivance of the bankrupt, but with-
out the privity of the defendant.