Court Of Common Pleas, We...
The Times, 1824-12-09T00:00:00

rBefore the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a comsmon Jrn7. i This was an action of trover, brought by the plaint0fls, MIessrs Sinclair and Rsutledge, to recover the value of certain goods from the defendant, to which they clasimed tb be entitled as a3signees of a bankrupt, named Proctor, The defendant pleaded " not guilty," and upon that issue was joined. The circumstances out of which this ~caie, wbich occupied the at, tention of the Court for two days, arose, were simply these. At the close of the year 1823, the deferdant, ar. Stevenson, wad desirous of parting with the premises and the machinery with wbich he had carried on the business of a distiller, at Nb. 71, Wardour-street, Soho. A person of the name of Proctor entered into negotiation to purdhase them, and 1,2001., it was stated by the plaintiff's counsel, was the sum at which the defendant was realy to scll thein. Proctor net htving capital sufficient to spare that sum at onem offered to pay 1,6001. for them, of which 3001. should be paid at the time of his taking possJession of the prem8ises, and the remaining 1,2001. by eight diffcrent balXyely insitalments. This offer was accepted by :8tsvengon* and an indenture was drawn up and executed by him and Proctor, whereby Stevenson, i consihleration of 3001. then paid to him by Proctor, and of certain rents and reservations therein after expressed, d.nised and leased to Proctor all that messusge, tens. ,oent, &c. known as No. 71, Wardour-street, and all and every copper, vat, boiler, plant, &c. &c. therein, for the fuill end and term of four years, and covenanted, that in case Proctor should truly pay the rents as they became due, he would, at the expiration of thle said terms, makeovertthesaid premises, coppers,vati, plant, kc. to Proctor, as being his property, under his ewn absolute control and ownership. Now, the rents and reservations alluded to in this indentuTC amounted eacih half year to a sumll of 1601. plus the interest at 10 per cent. on that patrt of the principal sum of 1,2001. whlIch then remained unpaid. On the 1st of January la.t, Proctor took possession of the premises thus demised to himr; gnd on the .5th of May had a commnission of baiskruptey opened against him. The defendant immediately went upon the premises, and in pursuance of a clause in the indenture; stating, that in case ot Proctor's Snsol. vency the whole four years' rent should be considered as presently due,'and giving him liberty to take possession of the premises, and .eU the boilers, vats, plants, &c. to ray it sized on the machinery which he found there. The assigneesof the bankrupt caimed it. how. ever,upon twogrounds-flrst,thattheproperty was the bankrupt's,sold outandout to him bytheindenture,which purported to be a lease;but whicb, they said, was nothing else but an ingenious device to get rid of the penalties of the usury laws; and secondly, that if it was liot his property, it was property in his order and disposition at the tim'e of his bankruptcy, and therefore available to the purposes of his estate under tihe statute-of James I. The chief points in the case therefore, turned upon the construction of this deel, whic Mr. Sergeant PELL, for the plaintiffs, contended was usuvious, and therefore null and void. On the part of the defendants, it was maintained byMir.Sergeant VAU(7,HAN, that tbe plant and other ma. chinery were fixtures belonging to the t'eehold, and thereYore trover wvould nzt lie for them ; that even if it would, the plainti'fs were out of court in consequence of there being a deficiency of proof as to any act of bankruptcy having been committed by Proctor, or any conversion of the property having been effected by Stevenson; and last of' all, that the indenture, which had been described as usurious by the plaintiff's counsel, was a bonaflde lease, and that the defendant had a right to enter into 8ossession of the premises, as a forfeiture of the lease had occurrel by the insGlvency of Proctor ; or that if it was not a lease, but a deed of sale, Proctor had been guilty of such a grons misrepresentation of his circumstances to Stevenson as to entitle him to repossess him. self of his property whenever he could. (A vast mass of cenflicting evidence was heard during the progress of the cause.) The LoutD CHIEF JUSTICE summed it up with great care to the jury, and lett it to themn to say whether the plant and other rnachi. nery were In the possession of the bankrupt, Proctor, at the time of his bankruptcy, antd whether the indenture between him and Ste. venson was for a lease or sale of it. If they found both points in the affirmative, there must be a verdict for the plaintiffs. as there must be even if they thought the bankrupt had fraudulendy misre- ps'eaented his circumstances to the defendant, for the fraud on one sidc had been fully muet by the uSUry ota the other. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffit on both the qtuestions. The value of the plant, &e. is to be decided out of court. COURT OF. COIIAON PLEAS. WVEBT if r nTrn flr- R. SINCLAIR V. STEVENSON.