Secondaries' Office, Cole...
The Times, 1824-12-03T00:00:00

Aont was a writ upon a c Iies af letn7tum,to inquire whatiproperty wras possessed br ,leutcnant-Colonel .l3udhanan, a retired officer in the E;ase India Company's service, iH order that the Sheriffs of Lon- don might seize upon it, for the benefit of the plaintiff. The real defendants in the case were the :'Comvtany of Alerchants trading to the E;ast Indies." The arnount claimed was very considerable. Several gentlemen connected with the highest departments of the establishment were present, besides thuie who were subpwcnaed to attend. Mir. JONES and Mr. BOsIPASS werm for the-plaintiff. Illr. POL- LocKt attended to watch the proceeding, but declined statine for whom be appeared. Mr. JONES stated, tbat tliR*? was a writ issuiedl at the suit of Mirs. Plunkett, for the amount of the ralue of goods supplied to Lieute- nant-Colonel Buchanan, who had some time ago been oatlawed, after certain proceedings had been instituted against him. In a for- mger proceeding Iis nephew. Jlly. Walter Buchanan, had been de. fentdant, and upon that gentleman it would be necessary to call, in order toprove the atnount of property to which the Lientenatnt- Coloxnel ha,d claim. The rtock to which the pl.aintiff, as creditor of the Colonel, laid claim, amlounted tonearly 4,000lL,* besides wrinch, there were t'he allowvance of the (,olonel by the East India Company as an otlicer from the year 1821, and other properLy, an accarate knowledge of which the CompAny would no doubt must willingly communicate. 31r.ValterBuchanan, examined by Mr. BOlPAs.-Had recceved from the Bast India Company the sunt of 3651. per annum fo. the Lieutenant-Colonel, being his allowance as a retired officer. 'WVit- ness accounted for this allowance up to the year 1821 to the Crown. He also received for him the sum of 1041. 12s. Gd. every half-year up to the year IB21. The latter etum had been regularly remitted from India, in bills enclosed in letters directed to the Lieutenant- Colonel, which witness opened by virtue of a power of utter- ney, and he knew frotn the Clolonel that this wan the interest of money of his in india, in the hands of the East India Com- pany. Witnes: had one of those bills. It was protested, and had been accepted by Jr. Dart, the Secretary to the Company. Had witness received the amOunt, it should certainly have been applied to the Lteut.-Colonel's benefit. It was here stated by the counsel for the plaintiff, that the bill hbad been protested because the Lieutenant-Colonel had been outlawed. The SECONDARY said that there was notenough upon the face of the bill to charge the East India Company wvith the principal. WVitness continued.-The 3651. a year was not receivel by any one tohis knowledge since the year 1821. He had not applied for itfrom that time, and he did not know whether the Lieutenant-Colonel was still on pay as a retred officer. Air. Dart, the Secretary, was then called; bathe referred thecoun- eel for information to the auditor. AMr. AMelville, the assistant auditor of the East IF dia Company, stated that Lieutenant.Colonel Buchanan was still a retired officer on full pay, XI a-day. Could not say whether Bnichanan had pro. perty in the 6 per cent. India loans. * Upon looking at the protested bill, he maid it implied that at the date of it Buchanan had property In the 6 per cent. India loan, ylelding 1041. 12s. 6d. every half year. The date was December, 1820. The exchange was at this period different from what it then was. The Lieutenant-Colonel's stock was what was callcd Bombay stock. AMr.BosePAs sai&, that upon calculatine, hefound that the amount of property producing that dividend was 3,4871. lOs. He claimed that amomnt in the hands of ttie East India Company, of which the Bombay Company was a branch. MIr. POLLOCK said the question wFe, whether Bonmbay stock was seizable in thIs countly. Mlr. aMelvile continued-The bilt was drawn by the Bombay (ovcenmetir upo3 the East India Company here. The pay lhnd not been issued since the year 1821, because it was neyer issued witltout the authority of the Directors. Mr. JONES contended that the interest being payable in England, the principal -was also payable here, and the East India Comnpany here were rer.n ible for the debts of the Bombay Company, as part of their establishment The SEdON3sARY said, that if the property was found in En3g- land, there wouldI be no difficulty in the tnatter, but the funds must be in the power of the sheriff of London. There was no proof that this was a debt upon the part of the East India Company. Air. Lfwford, solicitor to the East Inaia Company, stated, as an amiegs. et;rice, that the principal of a debt of the Company was paid aceording to the contract, either in India or in Englandt. Mr. Melville tJpiU being called again, said, that he could ascer- tain from the bsoks of the Company, whether the principal was 'payable hereor not. Thosebooks were inhis possession, bat hc had not the authority of the Directors to bring them forward. Mr. BoStPAs observecd, that It was very extraordinary, that the Directera should withhold the means of information, anud asked Air. Melville, whether In hIs notice to attend, lie was not caUed upon to produce aU books, documents, &c., relative to the case. Mr. Melrllle, admitted that he had been caUed upon to produce the books, and said that*applicatidn had beeln made to the Directors upon telibeject, but he was not pernistted to bring them forwnrsl. !Mrl.* Walte?r Buchanan agaiu called.-The Lieutenant.Colonel's stock hadl bcen ttansfrretl to witness in India, and he received 2501. interest, wnhich be paId away. le had also received the acceptance whish hadlnot been paid. -Olter officetr in the service of the East India Company were then called,'and askeh whether they had broughtany books or documents to lear awsay the obscurity attending the case, but thev all replied that they had brought nothln. that was required of themi. The roof as to the principal having failed, the Counsel for the pfaineft tlier went for the Lieutenanta-Celonel's pay, the arrears of which amounted to upwards of 1,0001. Mr. BosaPAs contended that it-vas claitmable by Buchanan, and of course seizable by the Sheriff'; and called upon the officers of the East India Crompany to produce the documents on the asubject of whicb they had received no. lice in their siuprnss. Thseyaall replied that they had to documents to produce. The SsMCONnAuYsaia he must have somne proof that the pay vwas a, piatter of rlght and rsa mere gratuity, before he could eseize up. on the -arrear5.> Mr. JoNes andM ir. Bo3r5As said- it waR inexplicable conduct up,on thepArt oflthe Company to refse to gilee facilities. In this cw every[ thdn which ugbt to hate beets done had been omiftted or, r'efused. The SECONnDAny said, thet if the pay was not demnandable upon the part of the IAicutenai.tColdiel,1it was n ot demandable upon the part of the Crown, which claimired under the defendant. AMr. BoxPAs..-We[lave celled upon tihe officersof th comnany, who are quialified toprovc-it, and refuse.. Buchanan's claim is shown Mr,.Alr lvlle here ebierved, that' the pay was claimable under Whattwerm called uiitary -regulations. * . M .eyO pA' then called upon hirii to t ae the natureof the rega. lations, and whispered to a person to ruu to a law stationm'S AUtE procure a efipv. This uas done in an inutant; the copy was brougit, thesegulations read, and adnmitted to be conclusive in favourot the .aim, whicl4 swas ctabiished after 25 yeas' service. ': th;8w60W#'iilty4 I:resinkthtn jgryA aid,.bq ahouztg ha : cnsdgll tleBsSI~ndia Ctompany def ndants iW-th; caFhe:r_ t*irni:4oh!dWotgits: why they Juii-vithEiw]dl theniitttt--i kvc'' itWda:sin their poyrei~ t'g.vas an& whldrtbov lid.bEen.-'rCeg-'. jlarlYScaIki uPon to prnddue. -It was .ctremy.xn1iJA vie' asUn 'conduict of'the .oippin+. Ile thtl told deheJ:'ry; tluX;they.swIe -U . '6nd ~th'leamoitniofi"l9Il951:., .10 ., w;; hicKiinckdethRe fY?CgO pay due by the East -1urdia-Company. . . . - . TheJury.accorldingly fotidido9tt amOnDn- - u'. SECONDARIES' OFFICE, COLEMAN-STREET, TItuRs. DAY. DiEC;2. THE EAST INDIA CO'MPANY.-PLUN.ETT V. BUCHANAN.