Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
LA I REPORT. This day the sittings for London were iesumed before the LoitD CHIEF JUSTICE and special juries. GAINSIFOtLD V. NAILLIE. This was an action by the plaintiff, a provision-merchant, to re- cover from the defendant damages sustained by his refusal to deliver 100 bales of bacon plursuant to contract. Alr.SCARLETT opened the case on behalf of the plaintiff, and num- gested that the true reason of the defendant's objection to uifi the contract was a rise in the price of the commodity, though it was un- derstood that he would now set ulp a demrur by the plaintff to ac- cept a bill for half the amount, on the ground that it was not drawn by the right partyv, but which applied only to 50 bales of the baon, sold under a disinct contract, and whicb, under the circumstances, could not at aU avail hnt. The broker who made the contract was caUed to prove it, when it appeared that he had delivered a different paper to each party-one containing two contracts for 50 bales each, and the other one con- tract for 100, and that hebad not signed his book where the original terms were stated. The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE held under thesecircumstances, that the centract set forth in the pleadings was not proTed, and the plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. PARK AND OTHERS V. PROSSER. This was an action by the assignees of William liller, a bank- rupt, to recover the sum of 4831. 16e. 8d., money had and received to their use. The simple question in the cause was, whether Idiller had committed an act of bankruptcy before the 15th of April, 1S22, when he consigned to the defendant certain goods, the proceeds of which the assignees now sought to recover. The act of bankruptcy relied on bv the plaintiffs was that the bankrapt absented himself, and kept house in order to avoid his cre- ditors. To establish this c.se, they proved that Alr. Aliller was ac- customed to usc the George and Vislture as his place of business, but that he losleed ia Chapel-street, Pento-mille, at the house of a widotv named Smith; and that being indebted largely to lUr.Joseph Manion, the well-known gun-manuiacturer, he on twvo occasiona was denied to his clerk when he was actually at home.They also called Alrs. Smith,his landUady, who proved that she, on these occasions, de- nied hiii by his own direction. This lady, who possessed consider- able personal attractions, was cro-s-examined, with a view to show th... in consequence of some scanda! abroad respecting her and her lodger, Mlr. Miller was desirous of concealing that he resided at her house; ani consequently, thiat the denials weTe induced by a differ- ent motive t?ala that of avoiding creditors. When questions to this purport were proposed, she was much affected; but deniect having heard that her relations objected to Mr. Aliller's residence at ber house. Mr. GuxEEY addressed the jury for the defendant: and remind- ing themn, that a denial was not, in itself, an act of bankruptcy, but only evidence of an absenting or keeping house to delay creditors, expressed his belief, that he sitould be able to satisfy them that 6F. MEiller wisbed to prevent calls a ! Pentonville, for private reasones unconnected with his debts; and that he was always visible at the (;corge and Vulture. liis place of business. For this rpnac he called Mr. Josepbi Manton himself, who stated that AYr. Ailler oved him a large sum of money; but that he was not hostile, -nor (did he know that his debtor wished to avoid him. On some occa- sion, AI r. IlMiller had begged him not to call at Pentonville, but to Xcomc to the George amnl Vulture. where he was always to be seen. The landlord of th- George and Vulltre proved that the bankrupt | had aroonsi for business, and occasionallydined and slept at his house. I lr. SCARi.xrT, in reply, observed that the denials could not have been for the purpose of concealing that Mfiller lived at Mrs. Smith's, as the answer was, not that he did net lodge there, but that he was not within. There was not the slightest imputation on the character of that laLty, who had no interest in the result, but who might well feel emotion on being iequired to answer SuchI ques- tions as had been put to her. The LonD CEIIEF JUSTICE left the jury to say by their verdict, whether tihe denial, w hich, being made to a creditor, were primeaftcie evidence of an act of bankruptcy, lhad been shown by, the (lefendauit so be induced by a dlifferent motive. The Jury retired, and after sorne time scnt a request that Mr. M1anton might be asked, wletlher he held any collateral security for lhis debt. AIr. Mlartoa replied in the negative, which answer was sent to the jury. After somiie further deliberation, they returned with a verdict for plaintift's-Damares 4831. Ils. 8d. VfORTT 0F KCiNWTWr.i RFT?' (GTh.rr.n-ArtL. Ap-txri. 1.