Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
The Times, 1824-12-16T00:00:00

CJounscl were heard on this petition, which had been adjourned as to the question of costs. The VICE-CITANCELLOIt said-" This case conies before the Court on the petition of Mr. Rawlinson, who, it seems, was tp- pointed an assignee under a commission against James Richardson. That commission was superseded by thisCourton the ground,smong others, that it had been fraudulently concerted between Mr. Buck- ley, the solicitor under it, and thn bankrupt. On that occasion there was no defence ofibred; the Court, therefore, took tlae case made in favour of the supersedeas as confessed, and decreed costs to be paid by certain persons, among whom was the solicitor Buckley. Mlr. Rawlinson's petition, afterstating thcse facts, Roes on to say, that Buckley had commened an action against him, as assignee, for costs under the commission, and that (libson, the messenger, hati brouight another action for his costs. Mr. Rawlinson alleges, that as Buckler was a party to the fraud, upon which the Court ordered the coniimLigion to be superseded, he ought not to be permitted to raise a demand out of his owa wrong, anid that lie (dir. Rawlinson) who had accepted the office of assignee, in total ignorance of that fraud, should be released from aU liability. The sameargument is used against Gibson. Wifen the last mentioned petition can,e on to be heard, the Court, inatimuch-as by formerly ordering Bucklev to pay costs it had decided that lie was a party to the fraud, would not now permit himi to raise a demandl out of that traud, and his pro- ceedings against the assignee were er(dered to be stayed. I had no doubt as to the legal jurisdiction of the Court on this point. Gjib. son, hlowever, having been no party to the original petition, the question of fraud against him ha.ld not been tried; and as it ap- peared that an action was then pending between him and Mlr. Rtawlinson, by which the question could be well tried, because the alle,ecd fraud was as good a defence at law as in eqtury, and a viva voce examination of witnesses was a better mode of ascertaining the truth than by the affidavits of parties, the Court left that action to be tried, and reserved the question of costs. In that action Air. Rawlinson succeeded: and I must theref'ore take it as proved'to the satisraction of the Judge and Jury, that Mr. Oribson was a party to the fraud. Now, then, arises the question of costs, whicl I reserved, not so tiuch because I had any doubt as to the jurisdiction, as frotn a disindination to decide the case partially; it being clear that the Court had only one way of deciding the queatiou as against Mr. Buckley. Since the trial, antd since the last hearing of the petition, it seems that affidavit8 have been filed for the liurpose of inducing tie Court to alter the decision which it before came to. Hlowever anixious the Court may be that every case which conies before it should be sifted to the bottom, it is necessary, for the ends of general justice, thatit sheuld adhere to certain and fixed rules. For this reason I cannot look at these affidavits ; no application was niade for leave to explaii any part of the case, and the Court cannot now permit it to be altered, when the only question reniaining for decisioni is as to the costs. I am of opinion that Air. Buckley must, for thc reasons I have before stated, pay the costs. With rea ect to Gibson, I must also assume that he was a Darty to the fraud. Some doubts have been entertained as to the jirisdietien of the Court against this per. son, who is a rnessenger. I halve considered the poinit a good deal, and I think tlis is a broad principle which must apply to all such questions; that is to say, that the great seal has jurisdiction over all the offhcers occupied in the conductof a commission of bankrupt, and over every person acting or coming in under, as well as over all questions connected with such commissions. It follows, therefore, that the Court can, if it shall think fit, order costs to be Vaid by a mebsenger. As to Air. Gibson's liability in the prcsent ipstance, however, it appears that the question between himn and Ilr. Rawlinson could have been adequately tried at law, and as the action had been commenced when M1r. Rawlinson filedl his petition, I mu st regard that as an unnecessary proceeding Dgainst him, and I shall, therefore, not o rder any costs to be paid by him on this Detition." VIC1E.CHANCELLOR'S COURT, WEDN2ESDAY, DEC. 15. IN THE 3fATTER OFP J1CHAIUASOT . A TANtNIlTP1'.