Year: 1876

In the suit OF Washington Rocbng against
Duncan, Sherman Co., TO recover some
s., 900 bill OF exchange on the Union
Bank OF London the facts OF which haye
been published in the HERALD, decision was given
yesterday by Judge Barrett, denying the motion to
vacate the order OF arrest He writes quite lengthy
opinion the subject, holding that the rule Of law
governing Of this kind well settled that the
question is OF interest be ascertaned by an in
luiry as TO whether the debtor had any reasonable
expectation OF meeting his obligations at maturity and
that II he had such reasonable expectation that then II
Is the case of a legitimate effort by embarrassed
person. be he trader banker 10 retrieve his fortunes
In which case the law is not strict as
10 require a disclosure which would prob
ably defeat the effort Otherwise 1t falls, he
says within that other class or cases where
the merchant or trader, binding himself hopeessy IN
solvent and with stoppage imminent without disclosing
his situation ana in virtue OF his supposed solvcncy
aud well established credit contracts fresh obligations
which no cannot reasonably hope to meet and this
the law condemns as fraudulent In the case at bar
tine defendants were hopelessly insolvcnt when they
sold the bill in Queston-tha Is, their liabilities
amounted about So 000 900 and their assets TO less
Than 81 000 000 They deny knowledge Of insolvency.
but admit knowledge OF embarrassment SIX days
later they stopped payment and made general assign
penL


became very clearly the duty OF defendants especially
hfter the admonton OF Judge Lawrence to lay before
The Court all the facts which they based their san





whom the facts were presented whether such expecta-
lions reasonable and real that light is thrown
upon the subject by the simple declaration that they
found themselves embarrassed that II was their duty
to give the Court nearly might be- Photographic
view OF their examination into their affairs, and that
after the EXAMINATION, with the result stated 1t
was their duty to have stopped al once. The opin-
Ion concludes as follows :'1he explanations made by


he defendants with respect TO the state OF the account
with the Union Bank of London sufficiently full.
rhey do not however alter the effect OF the failure TO
furnish the facts which have tccn discussed or course
lhe payment OF the bill did not altogether depend upon
the TACT that the defendants had money credit with
the drawee. Ii depended rather upon their contnu-
In other words, they were not justified in tue
expectation that the bill could be honored merely be-
cause the drawees had funds in their hands, unless
they also justified in the expectation OF success
In the negotiations for additional means and in tho
belief that such additional means would enable them
Ia continue their business without interruption. In
deed they themselves say the of the failure OF
Me Union Bank Of London to honor their bills, ncud
Ing that now question, the tecgraphic report in
London OF their stoppage and of the execution 81 their
assignment The Court therefore constrained TO
hold the necessary result of the conceded facts,
calling they do for clear and precise evidence which
has not been furnished of other facts sufficient TO
Justify the alleged expectation of continuance that the
defendants must have known when they sold the bill
that before II reached London they would be compelled
20 close tn cir doors and that refusal TO accept would
be the result IL follows, therefore, without the
SHY OF considering the other branch OF the case, that
the motion to vacate the order Of arrest mus; be de-
nied