Court Of Exchequer, Monda...
Air. HOLT appeared to jhow cause against a rule whioh Mr. Jervis, on thc part of the assignees of the bankrupts, had obtained on a former day, calling upon the Crown to show cause why all inatters in difFerence, relative to an extent vhich bad been issued by the Crowni against the property of' the bankrupts, should not he re- ferred to the dedsiou o-f the Remembrancer. The only question to be decided in the oase; wts, whether the Crowvn was eatitled to seize thewholeQf the money which had been deposited in the banking. house ef llUcavrs. Marsh and Co., ad- the produce of the assessed SaxeY of the diatriet od MEarylebone; or vbether the nssignees had a right to deduct from the money so deposited th PoTnadage which was usually allowed to collectors fot ehe ttouble of coUlecting the taxes. Air. JEnvis said, that the assignees were anlxious to save ex- pense to the estate. The monies. against which the extent had issued were mixed, pArt being due to the Crown. and part private property. Ar, XroL.T said, that his learned fiiend was mistaken. It was admitted even by the solicitor of the mssiguees that there were no mixed rnonies, The only point in dispute regarded the poandage. AMr. Baron GAnttow.-What do yoa want, lr. Halt ? lhr. HOL:'T.-That the extent ismed may be supported to the ox- tert' lor whkih it has been issued. air, Barol HULLocsx.-The anount of the pouzidage cannot be very large. Mr. JEXViS said, that it ainouited to between 6001. and 700L Air. Baron HUarL,ocrThat is impossible. There must be xonie mistake. mr. JErvra said 'that the extent had issued to recover the sum of 1,2191. 13,s.7d., whbid inclu4ed not onlyall that was due to the Crown, hut a considerable sutm which was due to the collectors for poundage ot previous collections. He contended thattheCrown should receive all that was duo to it, but that the collectors ought not to avail themnselves of the prerogative process to recover money to them individually.which ticy had sufteredto remain in the bankers' hands. AIr. HOLT pGoceedeato show cause against the rule. His learned fnend (iMIr. Jervis) had been mnilustructed; the mEoney against which the eXtent had issued was the produce of one collection only, and did notinclude uny pouxudea7e whiu bad been paid on account of previous collections. It was impossible, he maintained, for his 'earned friend to show that there was any severed sumn on account of poundage. It was the custom, under the direction os several acts of Parliament, for the collectorsof taxesto take the ,unms which they eol- lected tocommissioners,whoaudited theiraccounts, and directed them to Day into the hands of some banker the whole of the money whicb they had received, telling tbem, at the same time, tihat a certain aum was due to them for poundage. It was on that fatt alone that the argument of a severance or appropriation or funds on account ef popondage could, by any possibility, be founded. But he was prepared with evidence to show, if nece-s- sarv, that the whole of the sums thus paid in by the collectors were cairled forward to the next month's account without any deduction for poundage. It was his duty tocendeavour to satisfy the Court, that the monoey pai( into the hands of the bankers continued en Ser and thlat there wast no severance. Tae language which the Legislature had emnployed in no less than six acts of Parlia- ment was, that the collectors ahould pay to the Receiver. G3eneral " all the monies" which they might collect. Upon sutc paymnnt being made-not upon the Couct would ohserve-the Receiver-ieneral was etpowereo to alow theta a certain per ceutage on the whole Buin. BV the 3d of G3co, TV., cap. 88, which was the last act which had passed on the sub- ject of the collection of taxes, it was enacted, in order to guard a ainst negilgence or other misconduct on the part of collectors, that te per centage which had been allowed them by the Receiver.Ge. nerat might be withheld by the Commissioners of thle Treasury, it they sate good reasonn for withholding it. After reading that act of Parliament, it was really monstrouis to contend that a collector ha(d a lien of 3d. in the pound ot the monev which he collected. It was clear that the whole sum collected w.is under the cotitrol in the first Instance of the Receiver-General and finally, of the Lorde of time Treasu,ry. lie unulerstoed that Lis learned friend meant tn rest his case upon the 38tti of Geo. III., *hich directed collectors to retain 3d. in the pound on sill the money which they collected. The provixions of that statute had, however, been repealed by tbose of many subsequent statutes. His propositlon was, that the collectors had no right of lien or detention over the money which they collected that it was money in traeitu 7 that it was the Kitigs mnoneg, and that the per centage to be paid to the col- lectors was onty a contingcnt allowance. Under these oircumstances. hr.saw no reason for referring the niatter to the Remrenbranc,!r. Alr. JERvfs said,- that he was furnished with an affidavit, sworn by Air. learilcy, one of thle clerks in the late banking.bouse, which stated that the Msoney paid in as the prodtice of taxes, was usually igsixed with Money stanyding in the collector's private account. But he (51r. YJrvis) had no objection to take the facts as they were stated on the other side, for he knew (hat the solicitot was too respectoble to state any thing that was not correcL The proposition for which he had to contend was, that with respect to the money which was allowed to the col- lectors for poundage, the collectors should not avail themselves of the prerogative process to place themselves in a better tituation than the other creditors of the unfortunate house in which the funds had been deposited. He begged leave to refer tlhe Court to the 43d of (ieoige II. cap. 161, sec. 79, and the 4f8th of George I 1. cap. 55. sec. 7, wlhere it ivas enacted that every colector should receive 3d. in the pound on the amount of his collection on paying it over to the Receiver-General. 'lxc only object which, the assignees had in view was, to prevent the collectors frotis recovering by imnis of the Ciown procers a sum dne to thetn.cdves as individuals. There was, lie believed, uo act of Parlhinent wihich directed collectors to Pay in to banker's the money which-t.hey collected; perhaps it would be alvisable to pass an act, requiring them to pay it iltto the Bank ou Engisndi blt. thlat was beside the qtuestiou utider discussion, and upon which the decision oF the Court was callei for. 'T'he CI IEF BARON observed, that it was a strong prsunmption againstthe prop6sitiotI of the learnied counsel for the assignees, that no sinsilar case had ever comte before. the Court, althtough circmin. stances shinilartothoseouttof whicil the presentapplication had ariai.n nlust frequsen.tly have occarred. It must have been onty becausc the parties had thought that suelt applicautiong were untenable that they had not beeii tnade. If it could be mindc out that thiere was any severacee of the motney paid in tO the bankers bv the setting apart of a specificsumn for the collectors, the Coiurt would have had soine rea- son for sending tbe question before the Reinembrancer; but that was not th cease. There was no doubt tha, thc personi who collected tie tases and paid it intto the banker's were, at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, entitled tQ a certain per wcntage to coMptnsase them for their treuble but until that period arrived, herc was no, distinct sum wbioh eoulddbe calledt the property of the collector. It therefore appeared to hint that there was no grourud for applying for a re. cerence to thve 1geaembrsncer. The rule must be dischargedt. The other Judges, Mr. Raron GARnaow, Ailr. Baron tOttAwAss, and h5. }Baron H UJLLoca coincidled With the opinion elehirceed by the CaSiE BaitoN.-Thle rule was discharged. ,t . tUUUT OF EXCHRQUER. MovnAv NAV. On "VI r ?Xll I THS MrATTER OP MESSRS. XjSV ST-,-- PAU7Z't.:rQIv- AWYn -no~.