The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-05-16 00:00:00

MARSH V. WOOLLEY

Lord Chief Justice TINDAL delivered the judgment of the
court in this case, which was a rule obtained in the course of
the present term, calling upon the sheriff of Montgomery-
shire to show cause why the defendant should not be dis-
charged out of his custody, and also calling upon the plain-
tiff to show cause why he or the sheriff should not pay the
costs of the application. The defendant was taken in execu-
tion by the sheriff under a writ of ca. se. issued at the suit of
the plaintiff in the action, and it appeared, upon the affidavit
of Mr. John Radcliffe, of Liverpool, the defendant's agent,
that, at the time of the arrest, a protection had been granted
to the defendant, by Mr. Phillips, one of the Bankruptcy
Commiss!oners for the Liverpool district, under the provi-
sions of the first section of the late Act for the relief of In-
solvent Debtors, the sth and 6th of Victoria, c. 116. Upon
the argument four questions were raised for the decision of
the court ; first, whether the order of protection was good
without showing the authority of the commissioner to make
such an order; secondly, whether the affidavit disclosed
sufficient jurisdiction ; thirdly, whether the defendant ought
to be discharged out of custody ; and lastly, upon what terms
he ought to be discharged. The court found, upon exami-
ning the order, that it contained no statement that the de-
fendant was not a trader, or that being a trader he owed
debts amounting to less than £3OO, or that he had given the
requisite notices, or had resided twelve calendar months
within the Liverpool district. The order merely recited,
that the defendant had presented a petition to the Court of
Bankruptcy. for protection, without any finding that the
statements in the petition were true; and it then proceeded
to grant a protection to the defendant from all process against
his person or property, under the terms of the act of parlia-
ment. By the 13th section of the statute, however, the
judges and commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy, or
anv four of them, were empowered to make such orders,
rules, and regulations as they thought fit, for the purpose of
carrying the act into execution, and it appeared that certain
rules and orders were made by the judge and commissioners
of the Court of Bankruptcy, and approved of by the Lord
Chancellor, in one of which was found the form of an order
corresponding in every respect, with that given in the pre-
sent case. The question, therefore, resolved itself into this,
whether the words of the 13th section conferred on the judges
of the Court of Bankruptcy the power to make such an order,
and the court were of opinion that the words used were large
enough for that purpose. The next question was, whether
the defendant was to be required to prove by affidavit the ju-
risdiction of the commissioner ; and they were of opinion
that if the court should call upon him to do so, they could
not refuse to hear affidavits on the other side, and thus they
would anticipate the examination before the commissioner,
which would be obviously inconvenient. As, therefore, the
defendant was entitled to his discharge, it only remained to
ay on what terms the rule should be made absolute. It
Would be manifestly unjust to make the sheriff pay the costs,
because he could not know the terms of the protection, and
he would have been liable to an action for escape if he had
let the defendant go,
.and it appeared, ultimately, that the
sheriff had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff also seemed to have
been ignorant, at the time of the arrest, that any order of
protection had been given to the defendant; and, indeed, it
did not appear that any protection had reached the defendant
at that time. They were, therefore, of opinion that the rule
for the discharge of the defendant out of custody should be
made absolute, but without costs.

caunn's PATENT.—Li the Vice-Chancellor's Court, on
the greater part of the day was occupied in hearing
arguments of counsel in this case, which was an applica-
tion
nntdYoatiie court, made upon notice on behalf of the plaintiffs,
the Messrs. Chubb, of St. Paul's-church-yard, the inventors,
makers, and proprietors of the celebrated patent locks known
by that name, and also of the patent iron doors, safes, fire-
proof chests, boxes, &c., for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant, Priest, who is a furniture and general broker, carry-
ing
on business in NS, atenotreet, I3lackfriars, from selling, or
in any manner disposing of? or dealing in, any iron doors,
safes, chests, or boxes, which have been, or shall be, made
or manufactured by or for the defendant, in imitation of, or
by the name and description of, the iron doors, safes, chests,
and boxes made by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged by
their bill, supported by their own and the affidavits of severa'l
persons, that the defendant was exposing and had ex;icsed
on his premises for sale, and was selling iron doors, safes,
chests, and fire-proof boxes, all of which were spurious ar-
ticles of manufacture, not made or manufactured by the plain-
tiffs, but which the defendant endeavoured, by placards, la-
bels, and tickets posted on his premises, to represent to the
public as articles the make and manufacture of the plaintiffs ;
and these articles he disposed of, under such representations,
at one-half the price charged by the plaintiffs. The defendant,
together with several other persons, made affidavits on his
behalf, denying that the defendant 'had ever represented the
articles exposed by him for sale, or which he had sold, as
being articles made or manufactured by the plaintiffs. Mr.
Bethell and Mr. Bacon supported the plaintiffs' case; Mr.
Wakefield and Mr. Glass appeared for the defendant. The
Vice-Chancellor, without waiting to hear Mr. Bethell's reply
for the plaintiffs, said he was of opinion that, upon a review
f the whole of the evidence in the case, the balance of th

he thought

testimony was in favour of the plaintiffs cas(
sufficient had been stated to warrant the court in ;ranting
the injunction. Injunction granted in the terms above stated.

The proctors' charges in Wood of Gloucester's will
amounted to £17,536 3s. 2d., divided between three proctors.

INNEn. TEMPLE.—The following gentlemen were called to
the bar by this Society on the sth of May inst.:—Benjamin
Wyatt Greenfield, John Hampden King, Hugh Weightman,
pbilip Lybbe Powys, Frederick Lowten Spinks, John Whorl
Mills, Henry Staintou Laycock, and Corbet Hue.

A DECENT FORTUNE.—We are assured, upon what we
consider good authority, that the head of the Arkwright
family, who has just departed this life in his 86th year, has
left behind him a fortune quite unparalleled in the annals of
ancient or modern accumulation. To each of his five sons he
gives a million and a half, besides £40,000 a year in land,
which goes to the eldest son ; and to each of his fifty-one
grandchildren and great-grandchildren £14,000, making
£700,000 more for this single item. We take it for granted
that the daughters, one of whom is the lady of the Vice-
Chancellor Sir James gram, are not left wholly unprovided
for.— Weekly Chronicle.