The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENGO.
COURT OP CHANORRY.

Monday, Novehwbe!• 2U.
11-PARTF. FIRMIN, A BANICItUPT.
in this caw, which was stated yesterday in Tna
STATEIMAN At some length, Mr. Min and Mr.
Cotten were heard un behalf of Me. Woudgate
and Culonel.Masters; in attswer to the petition
of the bankrupt to supersede the commission. It
was ingt,d that the inotivet which actuated these
gentlemen in the advice they hid given to Mr.
Firmin, to consent to the measure of becoming a
bankrupt, originated in a friendly regard for his
interests, and a mature consideration of the pen.
deuce of
.such a step. From their knowledge of
his circumstances, they &It that they did nut ha-
zard too much in saying, that the emba►rassed si-
tuation in which Mr. Firmin's 'fairs were placed
could only be relieved by an act of insnlvency.
That step being determined upon, it wanted hut

the consent of Mr. Firmin to put it into execution.

The affidavits or thc.e gentlemen solemnly dc.
dared, that Mr. Firman submitted to this, and
seemed perfectly resigned to the unfortunate ne-
etSsity of it, from a conviction that it was the
only miens that could be resorted to of satisfyinc;
the demands of his creditors. They were much
more strongly convinced of the wisdom of such a
proceeding, from a regard to the sate of Mr. Fir.
min's mind, which rendered him incapable of at-
tending properly to the management of his busi.
nests; for, its consespsence of his unfortunate
mental situation, his property, since the year 1805,
had decreased its valise 10,0001. and it was their
persuasion, that in Cie course of a very short time
it would have been deteriorated to the amount of
420,0001. Under there circemstancani they hoped
. the Court would not deal with them with as much
severity as if their conduct had not thus been ex-
plained. •
The Loan CHANCELLOR having heard with
great patience the arguments of Mr. Hart and Mr.
Cullen, and declining to hear Sir Samuel Romilly
in reply) from an opinion that it would be unne-
cessary, aid, he was very reluctant in attributing
any improper motives to Mr. Woodgate and Mr.
Masters; but he must fairly say, that the affida.
•its before him disclosed to the• Court inch a
bankruptcy proceeding, as, he protested, was one
of the greatest abuses of the bankrupt laws he
ever heard of. The merits of the case lay in a
very short compass. It was of little consequence
to the question, whether or not Mr. Masters and
Mr. Wootlgate acted from worthy motives in their
proceeding; the principle upon which this com.
mission was issued was bad, anti if once admitted,
would be productive of the must shameful abuse
of the bankrupt hies. It was of essential im-
pot:lance that the bankrupt should give his un.
biassed assent to the docket struck against him.
In this cage, however, it was clear that the con-
sent was given by a person incapable of reasoning
for himself, and under circumstances which en.
titled him to the protection of the Court. There.
fore, without attending to the other circumstances
of the eve, or• the arguments urged in bchnlf of
these gentleman, he felt that he was hound to me.
rersede the commission ; and Its direct that all the
costs incurred in the commission and petition,
should be paid by the parties who acre the de.
fendants in the case.

COURT oF IMO'S BENCH.
Mecdoy, November 21.
This Wlf a day foe special arguments of eases,
one of whirl, was interestisig to the pulite.
"life r. LAND cAwnt:n A'n miurneo.
This was an adieu, for d nn account of
the Defendant's ganie.kei per having shot and kill.
ed the Plaintifi's dog.
The plea was, that the Defendant, Lord Caw_
der, was Lord of a Nlatior, at Kidwelly, in the
county of Carmarthen, and that the other Defen-
dant was hiv Ltodsliip's game-keeper; that the
Plaintiff's du; came opus' that manor, and was
following a hare, and might then and there have
killed fife said hare; that the ganse.keeper shot
the said dug, as it was lan ful for him to do. Tu
Which plea there was a demurrer.
Lord "Er.t.eptaottounn, by way of shelving the
absurdity of th:s plea, said—" I think the plea
does not justify the killing of the gamekeeper ;
is it to be endured that a man's dog, or any other
animal, shall be shot, because he follows a hare,
without stating in the justification of killing that
dog it was necessary to kill it ; or that the dog
belonged to an unqualified person, and was per_
suing game unlawfully. All this, or some of this
oa; surely necessary to he stated."
Mr. SCA RLLTT quoted several cases as analogous
to this plea, amid one, front the precedent uf which
tlii3 plea had been actually drawn.
Lord ELLI:N BOROL Gil —46 Upon this plea, the
question is, whether a dug hiatus the penalty of
death for running after a hare, in the manor of
another. Tnis case, upon this plea, has nothing
to do with property in game, nor with any right
that may lie deleted by a bord-oftise Manor,
or any other qtialified person, to a gamekeeper ;
but it is the simple case of one animal resitting
after another; and the question is, if a question
It can be called, whether the animal so pursuing
another, may legally be killed, without stating
that the 'act of killing him was ttecesaary. If
there be a precedent fur such a plea as this, it is
a precedent against common reasoning and com-
mon sense, and the sooner it is overturned the
better. It is a precedent, from which the eyes of
those who are engaged in drawing pleadings,
may properly be averted."—Judgment fur the
bit. PARK MOM" for a mandamus to be di.
meted to a gentleman of the name of Davis, a sae.
veyor appointed by the authority of two Ants of
Parliament, to act under certain Commissioners
for dividing certain lands in Merionethshire, com-
mending Mr. Davis to deliver up certain plaits,
%Thick he had drawn by order of the Commis-
slower., without which plans it was alleged that
the Commissioners could not proceed its the bust.
seas of their commission. These plans the Coo.
missionen had called upon Mr. Davis to deliver
up, loanable them toad under the provisions of
the Act of Parliament.

L.. ...

' The Comet *eked whether Mr. Atli list been
Wafted permeat of whatever &Mend he may
,have fur eating as a sumeyorin this case ?
Mr. P.tai sold, No ; the mode in which he was.
to he paid, MO not prittkitXl for by the Act of
P4rliament. No doubt bat be ought to be, and
Vinust be paid; but he bad not demanded payment,
wor hart he made the enn.payetent of what demand
Its might 'have as objection to the denim, of
three plans, Witt he had sturdily said, be would
nut give up the plan.
Thu Court held, that in no case could a Max.
damns he granted to compel any permit to deliver
rip any document is his possession, until a tender
shall have been made to him of the amount of his
demand, for the service he has rendered in the
business to which that document relates; for no
person shall be filled upon to part from the ilex
he ban upon documents in his possession. There.
fore tvuder should be made to this Gentleman, of
his demand for his trouble in this business; and
if, After-filet he refuse to deliver up thou plea*,
016 applicstiop to the Court might be renewed,
and the Court would attend to it—at present the
ottftion could not be granted.

• r
~"