The Sun. — 1828-06-26 (London, England)

MURRAY V. REE%£S.  This was an action on an agreement of this description :—A person of the name of Shearer claitned ' the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and was opposed by M... Murray, the plaintiff. The defendant, who acted as attorney for the insolvent, m order to induce Murray to withdraw his opposition, entered into an agreement to make the plaintiff sole assignee of Shearer, to make various disclosures, and to guarantee to Murray, as assignee, some small sums of money, amounting to about 100/. On these conditions the plaintiff consented to the discharge, but the defendant refused to perform his part of the agreement, and the plaintiff brought his action for the money, and'had a verdict for 1051., with leave to the defendant to move the Court to enter a nonsuit. The Solicitor-General obtained a rule for this purpose, against which Mr. Campbell showed cause. Lord TENTERDEN now pronounced the judgment of the Court. It was contended for the defendant, that this agreement was void in law, and could not be made the foundation of en action, and the Court are of that opinion. The Insolvent Debtors' Court have the power of imprisoning debtors who have misconducted themselves, for a certain period, and such bargains would deprive it of that power. They might likewise give occasion to much fraudulent concealment. It was said that creditors might con' sent to the discharge, and that then it would be valid. It may be so; but it is questionable whether this would bind other creditors who were no parties to the consent. But at any rate, such agreements are contrary to the policy of the law, because they interfere with that full and complete disclosure which the Act requires in the first instance ; and the Court is of opinion that the rule for entering the nonsuit should be made absolute.  A curious circumstance occurred about a forvtight ago, at the Assizes for the Lower P)rennees, in France, on the trial of two persons upon a charge of murder:—At the end of the first day's proceedings, when the judges, bar, &c. quitted the court, an altercation arose between the huissiers (a kind of constables or door-keepers) and the gensdarmes, as to which of them should manacle the prisoners, and conduct them back to pci,n. The geusdarmes insisted that it was the duty of the huissiers, and, to prove their conviction, they marched away. The huisxiers, equally positive of the contrry, followed their example, quitted the court, and left the prisoners alone and unguarded. The prisoners, though their lives were still in jeopardy, and that the crowds in the streets (it being market-day) offered them every facility for escape, very calmly -ttalked back to prison, and presented themselves to the gaoler. Here another difficulty ;nose 5 the gaoler refused to receive them without being legally authorized by a huissier, and tOr a considerable time these two men, under a charge affecting their lives, remained soliciting, as a favour, a re-admission to their dungeons. This circumstance was of course made good use of by their counsel, and the prisoners, against whom the evidence was indeed slight, were unanimously acquitted. —Hun:burgh Reporter