Ex parte Frederick Crabb and Thomas Simpson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 397
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES. BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CRANWORTH AND THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 24 L. J. Bk. 45; 2 Jur. (N. S.), 628; 4 W. R. 501.
8 DB 0. M. te a. 277. EX PARTE CRABB 397 [277] Ex parte frederick crabb and thomas simpson. Before the Lords Justices. Feb. 22, March 14, 17, April 12, 28. In therMatter of william palmer, against whom a Petition for Adjudication of Bankruptcy was filed. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Cranworth and the Lords Justices. April 26, 1856. [S. C. 24 L. J. Bk. 45; 2 Jur. (N. S.), 628; 4 W. R. 501.] The Court has jurisdiction on an appeal from a refusal to adjudicate to remit the matter back to the Commissioner, with a declaration that, in the opinion of the Court, the evidence is sufficient to support an adjudication. A trader was taken in execution under a ca. sa., and while in the custody of the sheriffs officer was taken under a warrant on a charge of felony. He remained in the county gaol under the writ and warrant for more than twenty-one days. Held, that this was a sufficient lying in prison to constitute an act of bankruptcy. A surgeon, who was also licensed to practise as an apothecary, supplied medicines to his patients, but not to other persons. Held, that he was liable to become bankrupt as an apothecary. This was a petition by way of appeal from the decision of Mr. Commissioner Balguy, holding that the Respondent William Palmer had not committed an act of bankruptcy, and consequently refusing to make an order of adjudication of bankruptcy on a petition filed by the Appellants seeking such an adjudication. The act relied upon as an act of bankruptcy was proved by the deposition of Mr. William Fulford, who deposed that he was Governor of Stafford Gaol, and that he in that capacity received the Respondent into his custody at the gaol under a warrant upon a capias ad satisfaciemlum at the suit of Henry Padwick, and also under a coroner's warrant on a charge of murder, on the 17th of December 1855. That the Respondent had ever since remained in the gaol in custody of the deponent under both the warrants. That the Respondent, on his committal to the gaol, was immediately passed to the criminal side of the prison, and there remained, and that the capias was not discharged. There was also the deposition of William Goodson [278] Ponder, the assistant of a sheriff's officer, to the effect that on the 13th of December 1855, the witness arrested the Respondent under a writ of capias at the suit of Henry Padwick, at the house of the Respondent at Rugeley, and remained with him there until the 17th of the same December, during the whole of which time the Respondent remained in his custody under the said writ. That on the 17th of December the Respondent was removed under the writ and a coroner's warrant for wilful murder to the gaol of the county of Stafford; the coroner's warrant having issued after the Respondent was taken upon the capias. It appeared that the delay in the removal of the Respondent to gaol was occasioned by the state of his health. The Commissioner made the following minute of the grounds of his decision:- " I think that there is not a good act of bankruptcy, being of opinion that the lying in prison (1) was under criminal as well as civil process; but I find that there is sufficient evidence of an act of trading." The petition of appeal prayed that the decision of the Commissioner might be reversed, and that an adjudication of bankruptcy might be made. [279] In opposition to that part of the decision of the Commissioner which found the trading sufficient, the Respondent deposed that he carried on the business of a surgeon at Rugeley, and only supplied medicines to his patients in the exercise of his profession and in subservience to the exercise in it of his skill and ability ; that he had never sold any drugs or articles out of his surgery to any person except as" before mentioned, and had then only done so on his own prescribing; and that he never had sold any drugs or medicines, or compounded any medicines, except as ancillary to his profession of a surgeon. There was, however, evidence that the Respondent had taken out a certificate from Apothecaries' Hall, by virtue of which he held the rank of a licentiate, and was authorized to practice in that capacity. March 14, 17. Mr. Archibald Smith, in support of the appeal. Mr. De Gex, for the Respondent. 398 EX PARTE CRABB 8 DE 0. M. ft 0. 280. their lordships considered that the question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to reverse a refusal of the Commissioner to adjudicate was of sufficient importance to be heard before the full Court, and the case was adjourned to be so heard if the Lord Chancellor should think fit. April 26. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Cramvorth and the Lords Justices. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Archibald Smith, in support of the appeal. The 12th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act enacts, that the Court of Bankruptcy shall have superintendence and control in all matters of bankruptcy, and shall hear, determine and make order in any matter [280] of bankruptcy whatever, so far as the assignees are concerned, relating to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial