The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-03-30 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS
YATES V. FENTON

-SATURDAY

Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Martin for the defendant. It appeared, from the
statement of the case by Mr. KNOWLES, that this was an
action brought to recover the sum of £l7O, or of £l5O,
which the plaintiff, William Leigh Yates, claimed as due
to him from the defendant, John Fenton. The defendant
is a surgeon at Liverpool; but before he commenced prac
tice as a surgeon, or simultaneously with it, he carried on
business as &chemist and druggist, in St. James's-place,
Liverpool. In order that he might be enabled to confine
himself to his practice, he was desirous of disposing of his
business as a druggist. The business was accordingly ad-
vertised for sale, and the plaintiff, who was a gentleman
living at Dartmouth, in Devonshire, and had been brought
up to the business of a chemist and druggist, seeing the
advertisement, wrote to the defendant on the subject.
Eventually an agreement was entered into between the
parties, by which it was stipulated that the plaintiff sho-uld
give the sum of £3OO for the stock in trade, goodwill, and
fixtures. It was at the same time agreed,that the plaintiff

should pay down 1-20 as a deposit ; and 17211 was instantly
paid down ; and some time afterwards, on the 4th of
August, 1845, the plaintiff paid a further sum of £l5O,
making, altogether, a sum of £l7O. Soon after this the
plaintiff became ill, and was unable to pay the remaining
£l3O necessary to iiaake up the £3OO. The defendant
remained in the place, and continued to carry on the busi-
ness. In March, 1847, the defendant sold what remained
of the stock to a gentleman of the name of Blythe for £llO.
Thus the plaintiff had paid the defendant £l7O for some-
thing which the defendant could not give him. It was to
recover this sum, or, at least, the £l5O which was paid in
August, allowing the defendant to retain the deposit of
£2O, for which the action was brought. The plaintiff was
nonsuited, with leave to move to enter a verdict for the
plaintiff for £l7O.

BIRD AND OTHERS V. UNSWORTH

This was an action, brought by William Bird and Wil-
liam Lunn against the defendants, John and Wm. Uns-

defendants pleaded non-liability.
Mr. KNOWLES stated the case. He said the plaintiffs
were assignees of a person of the name of Patrick Hare,
who carried on the business of a tallow-chandler, in Rane-
lagh-street, until June, 1846 ; and the object of the action
was to recover a sum of £l,OOO which was paid by the
bankrupt, Hare, to the defendants, shortly before his
bankruptcy, under circumstances which entitled it to be
recovered for the general benefit of the creditors. The
factswerefewand simple. The defendantswere soap-boilers
in Livhpool. There were considerable dealings between
them and the bankrupt, and at the time of the bankruptcy

there was a large debt owing to them by the bankrupt.
The bankrupt carried on business in a somewhat consider-
able way ; and he (Mr. Knowles) should satisfy the jury,
that, in the early part of April, 1846, the bankrupt was
utterly insolvent ; that he must have known of his insol-
vency ; that he had acceptances due which he was unable
to take up; and that he must then have_ contemplated

—, irremediable bankruptcy. Ile s had at that time
an account with the North and South Wales Bank, and
in the early part of April certain acceptances were to be
provided for by the bankrupt, the bank having re-
fused to supply the acceptances. But, the bankrupt
having obtained a guarantee from the defendants to the
hank to the extent of one thousand five hundred pounds,
the bank then provided for. the acceptances. The defend-
.

until May the 27th following, ',Ong after the time when the
fraudulen preference was alleged to have taken place: On

the Bth, ant

again on t

th, of Apri

4SsC4iis aLL,uurag, .t.vciitaLll,ea Li/ l.Jarne ana lope
and other parties, and in three days after he collected all
his property in an available shape and sent the whole of
it to the defendants. That property then consisted of
bills, cheques, and cash to the amount of £1,602, and the
bankrupt, who was then unable to pay his acceptances,

,ole of this amount, withoul inlicitation, to the
This constituted what the law called a fmu-
erence. The effect was, not to pay the de-
Ly thing they had advanced on account of the

guarantee, for they had then advanced nothing 'on that,
but by sending them all the available assets there was
any thing left to pay the creditors when Mr.
,came a bankrupt on the 11th of June. In such a

state were his affairs on the 21st of April that the hat
sent to him pressing him to diminish the balance owing.
them ; and in a day or two afterwards the defendants a

hen a meeting

- .
and Plitt, to know what ne was to
of the creditors was held, at which a composition of 4s. in
the pound was offered and refused, principally by the
bank, and on the 11th• of June a fiat was issued. It was
for the jury to say whether, under all the circumstances,
the transfer of the £1,600 in April amounted to a fraudu-
lent preference.

lARTIN contended

transaction was not a volunt

ment of a contract entered into between the bankrupt
and the defendant, a proceeding perfectly justifiable and
legal, and that it had not been shown Hare contemplated
bankruptcy when he disposed of his property.
' The JUDGE remarked, that, in the 'performance of a

!ct of a particu-