The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-04-09 00:00:00

validity of the mortgage for £4,000 upon certain prover Y
at Egremont, which Mortgage was executed by ti,e iemk-
runt to the trustees in question in Fed. 1841. The plain-
tiffs alleged that there was no consideration given to the
mortgage, and that the whole was a fraudulent and crdlu-
sive scheme,—fraudulent at common law, arid fraudulent
within the statutes regulating bankruptcy.—'n defeat tho
general body of creditors, The bankrupt fin merly carried
on business as a brewer, in Liverpool. be-ids being a
large speculator in railway shares, arid at the rime of his
failure owed upwards of £30,000; and it was prose that
there was not more than £5O of assets. The de,ence was
that to the extent of £2,000 there was a perfectly legal
and valid consideration, the trustees havini, given up a
previous mortgage to that amount. and that the bankrupt,
when he executed the mortgage, had reason to believe that
he should get consideration for the whole £4,000. A
great deal of documentary and parole evidence was given,
and the bankrupt himself was examined as to the circum-
stances under which he executed the mortgage. His
lordship left it to the jury to say whether they were satis-
fied, from the evidence, that the transaction was a fraud,
The jury after a few minutes' consideration. found a ver-
dict for the defendants. The trial ocupied the court nine
hours.

DEBT.
BANKS V. HALSALL.—This action was brought by the
plaintiff, Mr. Meyrick Banks, of Winstanley Hall, near
Wigan, coal proprietor, to recover from the defendant,
Mr. Thomas Halsall, coal dealer, of Liverpool, £33 6s.
the amount of two boat loads of coals supplied to him in
January and March, 1843; but, since the commencement
of the action, £3O has been paid on account by a person
named Everall. The defendant did not receive any of the
goods, and the question to decide was whether he ordered
them. The whole case turned upon two written orders,
and those orders were not forthcoming; but they were
sworn to have been in the defendant's handwriting, and
upon those orders the goods were sent. The jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff; damages £3 65., his lordship
stating, that he would certify that the case was proper to
be tried, so as to secure the costs.
ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PROPERTY HELD
AS SECURITY FOR A BANKRUPT'S DEBT.

CAZENOVE AND OTHERS V. CLAYTON AND OTHERS.—
This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiffs,
Messrs, James Cazenove, Philip Thompson, and Benja-
min Franklin, assignees of Richard Almond, formerly a
coal dealer and flat owner, at Orrell Mount, near Wigan,
a bankrupt, to recover possession of two flats and two
certificates of registry held by the defendants, Messrs.
Clayton and Wilson, bankers of Preston. The facts of
the case appeared to be these:—the bankrupt, Almond,
having an account with the defendants, deposited with
them two or three years ago, his muniments of title to two
flats, called the Longton and the Lord Stanley. In
March, 1843, about a month before the fiat of bankruptcy
was issued against him, the defendants had reason to
doubt his solvency, and pressed him for a mortgage on the
vessels. He had been looking into his affairs a few days
before ; and, finding himself in a state of insolvency, he
resolved to stop payment, telling the defendants that it
was too late to grant them what they asked. Mr. Wilson,
one of the defendants, then said they had a lien upon the
vessels, and would go and take possession of them. To
this the bankrupt consented, and accordingly the vessels
were taken possession of by the defendants. On the 28th
of April following, the fiat of bankruptcy issued, and the
assignees claimed the two vessels; but the defendants re-
fused to give up possession, alleging that they had an
equitable lien upon the property by virtue of the docu-
ments, which the bankrupt had placed in their hands as
security for the advances made to him.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said the plaintiffs
would be entitled to recover if the jury were of opinion
that at the time the bankrupt consented to the defendants
taking possession he did not mean thereby to confer a new
right, or that he meant to give a new right, and did so vo-
luntarily and in contemplation of bankruptcy. if, on the
other hand, the jury believed that he intended to give the
defendants a security which they did not hold before, and
that, in consequence of pressure, then the defendants
would be entitled to a verdict.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, for the da-
mages laid in the declaration, to be reduced to 40s. on the
vessels and registers being given up.
The court rose at a quarter-past six o'clock.

CROWN COURT.--THURSDAY.
JONES AND OTHERS V. LOWE.

The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of Mr. T.
Wardle, attorney, and the defendant a gentleman out of
business belonging to this town. The action was for the
sum of £95 ls. 10d., being the balance of an account
current for work done by Mr. Wardle for the defendant,
in carrying on law proceedings previously to the bank-
ruptcy of the former.
The defendant, who conducted his own case, pleaded
that the work had been improperly performed by Wardle,
and that his interest bad been sacrificed in consequence ;
that on one occasion, when his services were required in
behalf of the defendant, he was in bed at borne in conse-
quence of intoxication, having drunk the best part of a
quart of pure whiskey during the night, which he alleged
he had taken by mistake, and was obliged to be carried
to a warm bath to be sobered ; and that he (defendant),
when advised by Wardle to supply him with cash, had
been charged 6s. Bd. for such advice. He then called
several witnesses, amongst whom were two gentlemen
belonging to the bar, Mr. Ramshay and Mr. Martin, and
told the latter with much gravity, in reference to a state-
ment he was making, that what he (Mr. Martin) did not
know from his own personal knowledge could not be ad-
mitted as evidence.
Mr. JAMES replied, observing that the spirit of litiga-
tion seemed to have taken a very strong bold of the de-
fendant for a long time back, and there was nothing new
in his alleging negligence against parties whom he em-
ployed. if they did not succeed in obtaining all he expect-
ed. He had acted in a similar manner with reference to
an attorney at Manchester; and he (Mr. James) con-
tended that there was no ground for a charge of negligence
against Mr. Wardle.
Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount sought.
BATTERSBY V. BATTERSBY.

In this case a verdict was taken by consent for the
plaintiff, for £36.
There was also another action between the same par-
ties, in which a verdict was taken by consent for the
plaintiff, for £l3 16s.