Court Of Exchequer, Thurs...
n`r. r IND AT. movee tor a rule to Shlow cause why a sum of .001., levied on the defendant's goods, should not be placed out at interest for the advantage of lMIr. Rayer, on whose part the application was made. The defendant was an uncertificated bankrupt and Mr. Rayer, who was a creditorsunder the commigsion, succeeded in out- lawing him, and a writ of venditioni exrponas was issued on the out. lawry. When the writ was about to be executed, it was founld that tlhe sherifl of the county of Devon had, in virtue of a writ of fteri facias, seized property of the bankrupt to theamount of 6001. The outlawry took place in October, and thefieri facies was issued in November. The question which arose out of the proceedings was, whether the Crown, in which the property was vested by the out. lawry, had not a preferable claim to a person who derived his title from posscssion under an authority obtained at a period subsequent to the outlawry.-Rule granted. THE XSING V. -MARSH, STIRACEY, FAUNTLEItOY AND Co. Mr. JISRvIs, jun. moved for a rule to sbow cause why aU mat- ters in difference, connected with an extent in aid for 6861. which had been issued by the Crown against the defendants, should not be referred to the Remembrancer, to determine wbether any and what sums were due to the bankrupts' estate. The extent in aid was issued on the 15th of September last, and its object was to recover the produce,of some taxes which had been deposited in the banking. l.ouse. The object of the motion was merely to sare cost and expense to the bankrupts' es-ate.-'Thc Court granted the rule. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. TTT17,TlAV. NnV-. 25. THE KING V. COOK.