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

IHLER AND OTHERS V. DUNN

The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of Josiah
-7----
Swann Wood, a bankrupt, and the action was brought to re-
cover a sum of money which the defendant had received. The
defendant pleaded a set-off, which was denied,
Mr. WATSON for the plaintiffs, stated that Mr. Josiah
Swann Wood began business in Liverpool as a wine and spirit
merchant, in the month of January last. He purchased goods
from the plaintiffs to the amount of £5OO, upon the sugges-
tion that they were to be exported to the West Indies. He
had been in business about three months when he incurred
debts to the amount of £9OO. He had a house at Seacombe,
where he resided, and a place of business in Liverpool. He
had some furniture in the house at Seacombe, and stock and
fixtures in Salthouse-lane, Liverpool. On the 29th of April
he left his home at Seacombe to avoid his creditors, and up
to the present time he had not been heard of. The plain-
tiffs, although they had made every inquiry, could not dis-
cover who Mr. Dunn, the defendant, was. When Mr.
Wood was away from his creditors, Mr. Dunn appeared and
sold both the furniture in the house, and the stock and effects
in the warehouse, for £ll9 17s. 61d., the whole of which he
had put into his own pocket. It was for the recovery of that
amount that the plaintiffs, as the assignees of the bankrupt,
Wood, had brought the present action, for the purpose of dis-
tribution among the general body of creditors.
The fiat in bankruptcy was put in.
Mr. Walker, auctioneer, proved that he had sold the pro-
perty of the bankrupt for the net sum of £ll9 17s. 61d.
Dunn engaged him, and told him he was selling under a deed
of assignment,
Mr._ J.. 1. Clare, father-in-law of the bankrupt, Wood,

proved that he commenced business in January last; that he
had some furniture at Seacombe, and stock and fixtures in
Liverpool. He did not know where the bankrupt and his
daughter were.
Mr. Alexander Ibler proved the debt of the bankrupt to the
plaintiffs to be £5OO, and that he had repeatedly called for the
money, but had not been able to obtain it. He had also had
interviews with Dunn upon the same subject, and he pro-
mised to call upon the plaintiffs concerning it. He said he
only knew in confidence where Ward was, and he could not
tell. He acknowledged having the keys of Wood's ware-
house ; witness went with him to look over the stock. A
Mr. Ledson, a wine merchant, came in and asked where
Wood was ? Dunn said he could not tell, but he could con-
vey a letter to him. Wood had not since been heard of.
Mr. CRESSWELL, for the defendant, then addressed the
court. The bankrupt went away in May. Mr. Dunn took
possession of his effects for the purpose of making arrange-
ments with his creditors. He was in communication with
the bankrupt, and of course he expected remuneration from
him for his time and trouble. That, however, did not bind
the assignees ; they insisted upon their right ; but he (the
learned counsel) could not help saying they had used the de-
fendant very hardly.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—.£ll9 17s. 6d.
The JUDGE said, in consideration of the circumstances,
execution should not issue until the expiration of a month.

MORRIS V. BUTTERWORTH

....
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 agairist each of the acceptors, Butterworth and White-
legg. The 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 Junuz 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 was 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 he 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.
HALL AND OTHERS V. WALLACE.
The pleadings in this case were excessively long, occupying
thirty-two brief sheets.
Mr. CRESSWELL and Mr. HOGGINS were for the plaintiffs;
Mr. WIGHTMAN and Mr. —, for the defendant.
Mr. CRESSWELL said the question in this case would be
whether Oe 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 Ist of
April, and Mr. Wallace lent his son £6OO, with which he
commenced bnsiness as a draper in Sunderland. In the

month of November following, 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 some policies 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 h'e 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.. Thebankrupt
resided in Sunderland, his father-in-law in Durham, anfl
Mr. Phillips, another gentleman, residing in Stiraderland, 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 for 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. WIGIITMAN 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. WIGHTMAN, 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. CitasswELL 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 whether
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 £1190; and they further found that the execution had
been procured by the contrivance of the bankrupt, but with-
out the privity of the defendant.

CASE AND ANOTHER V. LACEY

This was an action► to recover £5O tine from the defendant
to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs reside in Manchester, and
the defendant in Todmorden. A verdict was returned for
the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.