The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-12-09 00:00:00

LA* I Nl* L

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 8.

EVA RTE STORRS, IN THE MATTER orCTl.tLtltteßi.
Mr. INANE stated this to he an application‘on the
part of the Petitioner, to have the; Commission of
Bankrupt, which had at first been sued out in the
name of the Petitioner, resealed, on the ground
that he had been represented as residing in Chatham,
whereas it was since discovered that he resided at Ito.
cheater, and its immediate n ighbourhood. A Com-
v.is.ion had since been sued againit the Bankrupt, 1,
a-tier his right description, by the. brother of the .1
Ciollirept ; hut ; that Commksion. was one which
cotdd not he sepported, being the Bankrupt's own
Commis ion; sued nut in concert with him; the as-
riznees under which were to be his relatives, and
under which he had, previous to its issuing, arranged
meastiros for obtaining his certificate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked, had any proceed-
ings been held under the first Commission ?
Mr. lloaxe stated, that the Commissioners had
repeatedly met, and had summoned before it ' a wit-
ness, toprove the art of bankruptcy, but who being
a servant of the Bankrupt, and residing with him,
refused obedience to their.summons. •
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked, had the Petition..
ing creditor made oath to the justice of his debt? •
Beieg answered in the-affirmative,
The LORD Cui.NcEiLoa said it had been deter. 1
mined by my Lord Talbot, that a Commission Older
which a creditor had proved a debt could not be re..,
Suponsiiig the Bankrupt to die, the Com-
toitoion again-to him would proceed, under such dr.:
cams-fences.. Did Mr. Horne know of any case in
which a Cemmission was • resealed after proceedings
had b,en hid antler it ? • •
Mr. lioesr admitted that he did not. He sob.
milted; however, in this case, that the Commission
lattiasoiil being clearly the Bankrupt's, could not be
maintal,e44. • •
The Loaotusartuzost thought it would answer
every purpose for Mr. Horne to stal a new Controls.
a;ot..
A43•EitAcu submitted, that if the affidavits in sop-
port of ttvprestut Petition were to be acted on, his
Ctietits were entitled to . answer them. .They said
rot bee, i li!od till late last night., .•
The LORD CHARCELLOR having learned from Mr.
Borne that this was the case, said there were several
respectable names alluded to is these affidavits. It
would be proper that they should have an opportu-
nity oCanawe.ring them.
-110.11.1tien said that the Petition mast be refused.
Is ,11/1 not signed :by the Petitioner.

p ass said, he. understood his Client was In
bastotille,-Wtd was on a joiseiey at the time this Peti-
tion was peeseutcd. -
Thel.,ORD CIANCFLLOW, its.that case, thought the
Court might dispense with its. rule, ind suffer the Su-
licitor te.sign the-petition. •
Mr. LsAcit said the Solicitor hat! already signed it.
The Loan CUANCELLoR remarked that that could
not be done by the Solicitor of his own authority;
without the- permission of the • Coen, The Court-
would not: suffer its order& •to thus dispensed
with. Of the five or six I.ltokrupt Petitions in this
day's paper, and which had been for the last five or
Sle dst?) s repeatedly requested might be allowed to
stand in the paper ; it was now twelve o'eleck, and
there was not a single one of them that could be pro-
ceeded in, on account of some irregularity or an.
other, arising from the Solicitors oetteersted• It was
really pest endurance, that after Gentlemen were
most respeetfully.requested to attend to the rules
laid down by the Court, they were in the constant
habit of -disregacchug them. It was his Lordship's
determination, Om every similar occasion, to give the
coots against the Solidtor.• lie Should dispense with•
hilt rule in the present instance; and accordingly Or-
de-ed the matter to stand for Tuesday.
STEUART V. ALLISON.

Mr. COOK moved in this case for an Injunction,
seßtraining •Mr. Allisob .from proceeding to try an
action at law; for recovering a deposit made by him,
in the fiends of Messrs. Winstariley, on a purchase
made by him of a copyhold estate, consisting of
seven dwelling-houses, with gardens, and right of
common, iu West Ham Common, at a net ground-
rent of 301. per annual; Thirliedid,on this ground,
that a bill had been filed in iiquity,, for specifid per-
formance of the contract ;:and tK submitted that the
Defendant could not be permitted:ln go on and try
his action in the mean time. The title of'llte
tiff had been admitted to be good, and had been ad;
ceptod of by the Defendant as such, for a certain
lime, w hen he expressed la dissatisfaction as to the
lands tint answering the description. given of them in
the particular. The difference between the parties
consisted in tho interpretation to be given to the
words ground-rent. The import of.these words was,
he submitted, to he collected from the context, and
in support of thii doctrine cited Maunby u. Maunliy.
441 Strange, where it is said, that nothing is !noire
common than when people ripest: of ground-rent,:
to meal' the houses and lands out of which they
issue. •