Court Of Chancery, Monday...
The Times, 1824-11-30T00:00:00

,I,AW REPORT. (La day oTopiI I. I'le Bankrupt prayed to be brought up onrhazedas corpu, 2nde dlischarged, having been committed for not answering Inta watisfc- I tory rnanner before the commissioners. The reason given by the I 0P2so1C! for not replying Was, that a direct answer might eriminate I lun1 (The trauactions in question wiere; dealcig or jobbing in Th'eLon-D CnA-AcmLLoU said, that Sir James Mansfield, a Veyable jed-e had disanarged a bankrupt prisoner from the cOm- nitInentof t e, commsissloners on bis owni allegation,lthamtanswer- ing would criminate him. His wordshipould by no nieaes go that leugth. He would first of all reluirethe petltioner to ubmit him- he itosnothe rexmination and give some better explanation. If the commissioners still should think bis answera unsatisfactorY, *ze petitioner was not without his remedy, by application to any of the 12 judges, who vould discharre him if there were only the opl- tion of that-one judge out of the 12 in favour of his discharge. sLAIEcSiORR V. dLA350tOAISff5sjE CAMTAL COMtPASY. The IORD CEANCELLOR expresd his doubts onthe effectof the alleged contermpt and disobedience in this case on Saturday: bhut made use of the opportunity to admonish the good pople of 'Wales, ragistrates inclusive, not tO be quite ao ready in the)i ap- pealS tO clu-law, as the trnsection% which had been referred to in this case would indicate. His lordship, agreeably to his promise on S3aturday, determlined upon the casce afoGriffiths, Routh, Crawsilaw, and Guest, members of the committee, whose commitment htad been -poayteds that there were nc grounds for itnrisoning them. Upon the fate of Ueece, the fifth of the defendants his lordsbip still hesi- Sated, but utderrook to give his dedisin on 04brursday morning. Bl1ERS V. BENEiCr.-OP aA-stOVSK CASFa. xtucl preliminary conversation took VL-ace upon the order of this ptition, the urgency of which, in regard to the approach of the season, was strongly pressed on the one side, while, from some neglect of the soldcitors on tite other, which the LAsrd Chancellor eeverely reprobated, the counsel were not fuUy instructed. It was arranged at last that the petition should be opened. Air. HA.RT stated the nature of the motion, which was, that a 7nanager and receiver should be appsointed to direct the property 3ud apply the receipts, and that. the plaintiff might be at liberty to offer hisi services for the management to -the Master, to do it witfiout fee or rewvard, and that MUr. Allen alight be restored as receiver- The motion arose oat of a contract for renting the theatre novw in ruestieo before the Coart bv the laintifs bill for specific per- formance. and by cross 1i4A of defendant praying to be released from a fraudulentbargain, The securities of the defndant (who was *escribed as a ran of straw) for the fulfilment of thts contract, were the llarquis of hfetford, Earl Glengal, Hon. F. Rouse, Ibir Chip- pendaak and Mir. Yallop. The objection to the fulflmnent ,of the contract was, that the plaintfff, who was to have O,O000L from the defendant for giving up the theatre to him, with the incurmbrAn- en of the current season-the property to- be taken for better or wo, by the defendanthad neglected to inform him of debts -Aaoting to between 8,&000. and 10,0001., which were due upou, it at te time. The Court would see, that however tyatt contract mige be eventualfy distosed of, it was for the interest of all par- .ies that the most effecthiaa preparations should be made to mnake the veason,which was now rapidly approaching, available for the benefit Of the property. CHtAMBERS V. WATERS. lIr. HArtr applied to the Court for leave to allow the defendant, vwho was found in contempt for want of answer, to appear and plead instead of having the bill taken against himu pro confesso, as had been prayed in this and another miatter of the same kind now pnds.ing. Ilr. Sv nnEG said that there never was such a motion as this made before. Mr. Waters had choren to withdraw himself from England to reside at Calais. He had no objection whatever to filing bills and sinig all the means which the Jurisdiction afforded for annoying others, but for 18 months had refused all obedience to the process of the Court when issued against himself. He had not only delayed answering the bill, but had, after repeated warnings, been declar- ed in contempt. Attachment had issued, which was returned with proclamation * an2d after all these proceedings to compel him to plead,he very coollv applied tobe allowed to come in and offer his plea, answer of demurrer to the bill, as If none of this had taken place. IUr. EIfArTcontendetd that this was according to the practice ofthe Court, whose process for contempt might always be avoided, by the defendant coming in to answer, and praying tlhe coats of his con- tempt. And though he could not cite particular cases in whlich the application had succeeded, there were some in the bools inwhich the Court had entertained the argunment for absolving contempt, even rhere the order had issued upon contempt. The LotR, CHCANCELLORt apprehendod tOat there must be somne general rule toapply to these cases; otherwise a plaittiff might be put offfrom his answer for 18 months; and the defendant, after re- Snaining abroad, perhaps going abroad with the nmanifest intention to commit contempt, would, by putting in his answer, stand just as well as if he had answered at first. lfe therefore directed that tbis mat- ter sbould4 stand peremptorily for Thuv,day morning, and in the mean time Alr. Hart was directed to look Into the cases, 3nd inform the Court what was tihe general rule observed by It to defendants so COUft OFPHANCBRV. MOIMAV. Nov. -4. - TV TL'n aTs-lavvk? . ? I--