The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-03-23


MARCH 2l.-CaIrin Angier-The Court observed
that in this case, motion had been made for some
general rule 10 be established governing amend
nents. A decision had been rendered, that after
the notice OF publ cation run out, and the case
came up for the action Of the Court, amendments,
on good reason being shown, could be allowed; but
this is all that has been done, that would be for
the present The amendments that offer Will be
treated on their respective merits. In the present
case, objections had been entered on the ground,
that the petitioner omi ted to state whether or not
the house to which he was attached (Messrs.
Tucker IL Co was solvent or otherwise. The
amendment fully goes into the situation Of the pei.
toner, and gives full view of his affairs, such
creditors are entitled to- He states that he is but
nominal partner in the house, which he believes TO
be solvent, and thus no claims, account OF said
house. can come upon his estate after II has passed
to the assignee. The Court believes the petitioner
does not intend to act in bad faith, still a rule has
been adopted requiring something more than the
affidavit Of the interested parties will not say,
remarked Judge that | will refuse an amend
meat on the affidavit Of petitioner, provided col.
lateral testimony cannot be obtained but such was
not the case here. The affidavit could easily be
supported by that of Messrs. Tucker, which would
have great weight. The counsel was permitted to
withdraw the amendments, in order to obtain addi-
liOnal testimony.
Decisions.-Ihe Judge remarke ed that he had felt
indisposed yesterday and Was not prepared to give
any decisions He would reserve Them to another
day.
0bjcctons.-The Court stated that it would call
no objections were announced by the clerk, they
would pass to the usual decree. Objections were
offered to those Of BENJAMIN Leonard, Henry H.
Elliot, Raphael Paixotlo, and john George Smith
Henry III Eniot-In this case, Mr. Fessenden
said he had received power Of attorney from the
Hartford Bank, with Instructions TO oppose tbs pc.
ttion. He was not fully prepared 10 do so, and
wished for short delay. Mr. j. Wheeler, for Pc
ttioner denied any right to the in prevent
ing decree. The creditor was bound to have his
objections prepared when the case is called, or
Propositions had been made the creditors recent
ly, and the Hartford Bank thought proper to de-
cline MIR Fessenden replied that his clients lived
at distance, and he hoped the case might lie over
lance could not affect decree. Creditors stood on
the same footing whether they lived in New York
or any other part Of the Uuited States, or abroad
Delay would only be allowed for good reasons
shown II an arrangement has been on foot, and
the creditor delayed by the means, that was a fair
ground for excuse. Mr.. Fessenden answered that
such had been the The petition lies over uA-
til to- morrow, when good cause must be shown.
Samuel r Brooks-AUred Brooks.-The petit
TONERS were Of the firm of Brooks, Brothers Il Co.
which stopped payment in 1887. They were OPP
posed by MIR. R. }. Dillon for the house Of j. Clegg
& Co, OF England, on the ground that they had
received goods, with orders to sell and remit the
money. Said goods had been sold, and the money
obtained six months before the failure of Messrs.
Brooks, but never paid ever. This is the first
case in which it is contended that factor is f.
dutiary debtor under this act. Arguments ON the
objections were presented, Mr.. Dillon appearing
for Messrs. Cegg, and Mr.. M. G. Patterson for the
petitioners Mr.. d. contended that the intention
Of the legislature must prevail. The intention Of
Congress in this act to relieve misfortune, not
fraud. breach Of trust is fraud. He entered
fully into the merits OF the act, showed the ma.
ture OF fduciary obligations, and the great care
that should be exercised in relation to the rights
Of property. Legislators, he contenied, went to
the very achme OF legislation, when they arrived
at that point which would dispossess another of
what in right belonged to him. The statute being
in derogation of the common law, and operating to
take away the property Of the individual, must be
observed strictly, anil not enlarged by construe.
ton He maintained that man receiving the
property Of another, with orders 10 sell his ac
count, and remit the money to the owner, receives
that property in trust, and if he pockets the pro-
eeeds instead of paying them over, he commls a
breach of trust such is contemplated by the act
Mr.. p made further and forcible remarks. Mr.
Patterson will be heard to- morrow.
Business of the COtut-Judge Belts remarked
that business having accumulated to great ex-
tent, some system would be necessary in regard to
it. The remainder of this week would be devoted
to bankrupt business-next week to that of the
District Court, when no arguments in bankruptcy
would be heard. Tee Circuit Court must 60 IF to
the regular term.