The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — 1840-12-18 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

SHOCKING MURDER ON THE EDINBURGH AND  GLASGOW RAILWAY  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.---TvzsDAY  (Before Mr. Commissioner HoLuoYD.)  WRIGHT AND COMPANY'S BANKRUPTCY  This being the day appointed for the choice of assignees in the bankruptcy of Wright and Co., bankers, of Henriettastreet, Covent-garden, there was a considerable attendance of anxious creditors, but their number was limited in consequence of an advertisement which appeared in all this morning's papers, from Few and Hamilton, the solicitors to the fiat obtained on the 26th November last, upon the petition of Mr. Pett Cobbett, stating that that fiat had been superseded, and that the " meeting for the choice of assignees would not take place." The debts and liabilities are estimated at from £700,000 to £BOO,OOO, and the assets to something like half a million, exclusive of Mr. Biddulph's large landed property. Among the creditors are the Duke of Norfolk for £54,000, Lord Petre about £15,000, and there is scarcely a Catholic college or chapel in the kingdom which has not had large funds deposited with the bankrupts, who are also trustees for many Catholic charities, and other religious establishments. Mr. Hamilton, who opened the fiat, came into court shortly after twelve o'clock, the hour originally appointed for the meeting, and expectation was on tiptoe to hear sonic explanation offered as to the reasons for postponing the meeting, or the grounds upon which the fiat had been superseded, but not a word was said by the learned gentleman.  In about half an hour afterwards, Mr. France, of the firm of France and Palmer, solicitors, (and who are said to represent deposit creditors to the amount of £98,006, and as such could have carried the choice of assigness), addressed the court, stating that several creditors, who were his clients, were anxious to prove their debts, and proceed at once to the choice of assignees; but he had-been informed that the fiat was superseded, and he wished to know officially if that were so or not ? The learned Commissioner said, that the fact of the annulment of the fiat had been officially communicated to the court, but he knew nothing more about it. Mr. France begged to know if any grounds had been stated for superseding the fiat ? The learned Commissioner said, none. An order from the Court of Review had been served upon this court, stating the fact of its having been superseded; but no ground was stated upon which such a decision had been obtained. However, in order that the creditors should be in possession of all the court knew upon the subject, he would direct the registrar to read the order of the Court of Review. Mr. France said he felt obliged to the learned commissioner, but he did not wish to trouble the registrar to read the order, as he was satisfied at hearing officially that the fiat was superseded. A solicitor, who attended with an affidavit of debt from a client who resided in Wales, wished to know if it were necessary to have a fresh affidavit in consequence of the fiat haying been superseded ? The learned Commissioner said that that affidavit formed no part of the proceedings, and therefore could not be used. The Solicitor observed thatt the affidavit was made before the order of the Court of Review had been issued.  The learned Commissioner thought a fresh affidavit would be necessary. The Solicitor.—lt has been suggested to me, sir, that under the terms of the order of the Court of Review, we are entitled to the costs in making a fresh affidavit. The learned Commissioner.—That is not within my jurisdiction. I know not why the fiat was superseded ; for, as far as the proceedings go, all was regular upon the face of them. My duty is to obey the order.