The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-03-20
United States District Court.
Before Judge Belts.

MARCH I9-Befors proceeding with the cares in
bankruptcy, the Court remarked that complaint
had been made as to the high charges in the Office
Of the United States Marshal The complaint
up in relation to the costs taxed in the case of
the schooner Signal which had bee bslled for sea-
mans wages. After speaking Of the laws Of Goa
gress in relation to fees Judge Belts remarked that
L was the practice Of this Court when vessel was
libeed, to liberate her on the amount claimed be-
ing paid into court. BY this rule the costs would
be bat fes dollars, whereas by leaving the vessel
in the marshas hands, expense accrued and instead
Of bill of four or five dollars. owners found that
they had to pay IS many hundred. In this case, If
they are desirous, they can have a relax of cost
The Signal belonged to Rockaway. She was Ii.
belIed BY seaman for wages due him, amounting
to $40 The vessel was taken possession of by the
United States Marshal, kept forty five days, and
$3.50 charged for costs She was sold for debts and
costs, and brought about 1920 In addition to this,
il was remarked, chain cable was lost, while she
lay at the wharf, worth $50. So that the owners
lost their vessel, and l0to boot, for debt of $40
Ten petitions in bankruptcy passed 10 the usual
decree Objections were filed 10 those CT John W.
Strong, Isaac c. Noe, Daniel Youngs, oud Edward
Solely. That Of Moses T. Arment, lays over to the
| 18th instant.
Further argument was heard in the case OF
george Brown. MIR. Edmonds presented state
ment wniet shows that the petitioner had done
every .ing possible 10 liquidate his debts and had
or.red, the day before he petiloned, to mortgage
$500 year Of his salary for five years, IL his ere
ditors, (the Msssrs. Mahlcr,) would forgo their
claim, but II was refused, although Messrs. M
had seiz d what property remained ia the hands Of
| p. and G.. Brown under execution; Mr.. Edmonds
contesded that the meaning Of the act in relation
20 trust funds only extended to public officers; TO
| executors, administrators, guardians, sc, ap
pointed BY courts; and perhaps men employed "a
oollsct money, such as agents for newspapers, Al
had been urged by the opposite counsel, but did
not mean contracts made by men having know.
ledge Of what they were doing, and with whom
they were placing their property; a., for instance
where man entrusted broker with his funds, and
thai Aroker, through ERE or other misfortune. los
l 4. He would be liable for this debt only u u.
1 same degree that he would be for others.
In relation to preferences, Mr.. Ednonds observ-
l ed, that some rule was requ red, A. men were &C
tually afraid as the stands, TO pay Their ord
nary debts, les. IL should be considered prefer
fence, and operate 1gainst them, were they driver
| to take advantage Of the bankrupt act. He cen
tended that man had a right to psy any debt h
pl ased, and such could not be considered prefer
ence, provided he really owed the money In sup
port OF this principle. he referred To Hartman W
Fisher, Cowp. IL; Poland W. Glyn, u II 30
l Churchill VS.. Crease, 8 Bing., III; ExPate schn
aamore 3 Yes IS; Vather w Cocks, q Ado
10; Moody VS.. Macken 1853 In relation TO Mr.
ns9wn, the transaction originated in goods bought
~" nad no connect on at the time, with what coult
eI considered dduciary affairs AT IL O'Clock
""hc luis case was on, the court adjourned.