The King v Page
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1819 |
| Date | 26 June 1819 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 741
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 3 Moore, 656.
[308] (!n the exchequer chamber.) the king v. page. June 26, 1819. [S. C. 3 Moore, 656.] A bankrupt, who has surrendered to his commission, is not guilty of felony within 5 G. 2, c. 30, though he refuse to answer questions concerning his property.-The bankrupt lay in prison two mouths on a civil process, after a criminal process had been discharged, and the discharge had been delivered to his attorney: Held, that this lying in prison constituted an act of bankruptcy, though it did not appear that the bankrupt had personal notice of the discharge. The prisoner was indicted on the 5 G. 2, (c. 30, a. 1), for that he, being brought before certain commissioners of bankrupts, under a commission of bankrupbcy that had been issued against him, feloniously did not submit, from time to time, to be examined upon oath, (hg not being of the people called Quakers,) by and before the commissioners in the said commissiou uaraed, or the major part of them by such commission authorised, and in all things conform to the several statutes made (and in force at the time of the making and passing a certain act of parliament, in the fifth year of the reign of his late Majesty :King George the 2d, intituled, "An act to prevent the committing of frauds by bankrupts,") and fully and truly disclose and discover all his estate and 742 THE KINO I'. PAGE 1 BROD. & B. 30a effects, real and personal; and how, and in what mauner, and to whom, and upon what consideration, and at what time or times, ho had disposed of, assigned, or transferred, any of his goods, wares, merchandises, monies, or other estate and effects, (and all books, papers, and writings, relating thereunto,) of which he was possessed, or in or to which he was any ways interested or entitled, or which any person or persons had, or had had, in trust for him, or for his use, at any time before or after the issuing of the said commission, or whereby the said George Page, or his family, had, or might have, any profit, possibility of profit, benefit, or advantage, whatsoever, except only such part of his estate and effects as had been really and bona fide before sold and disposed of in the way of his trade and dealings, and except such sums of money as had been laid out in the ordinary expence of his family ; and deliver up unto the said com-[309]-missioners by the said commission authorised, or the major part of them, all such part of his the said George Page's goods, wares, merchandises, monies, estate, and effects, (and all books, papers, and writings, relating thereto,) as at the time when the said George Page was so first before Henry Eavell Reynolds, Robert Joseph Chambers, and Joseph Hickey, the major part of the said commissioners named and authorised, to wit, on, &e., at &c., were in his possession, custody, or power, (the necessary wearing apparel of him the said George Page, and the necessary wearing apparel of the wife and children of the said George Page, only excepted,) but feloniously did make default and wilful omission in not submitting to be examined as aforesaid, to wit, on &c., at &c., with intent to defraud the creditors of him the said George Paga, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. At the trial before Beat J., at the Old Bailey, (February session, 1819,) it appeared that the prisoner was brought before the commissioners on the 3d October, 1818, (being the last day appointed for his surrender and examination,) that he took the oath administered to him by the commissioners, and, on being examined, (especially as to a sum of 5001.) declined to answer, alleging that he was unprepared, as he intended to dispute the validity of his commission. Ho was again brought before the commissioners on the 7th November, at Guildhall, and on being examined, (especially as to the 5001. mentioned before,) declined to answer, giving the same reasons for so doing as before. On the 28th November, he was again brought before the commissioners, and (advice having been first given to him by them touching the necessity of a proper answer, after all the time which had been allowed,) he again declined to answer the questions put to him. It was objected on behalf of the prisoner, that he, having surrendered to his commission and taken the [310] oath, could not be guilty of felony by giving insufficient answers to the questions put, or declining altogether to answer questions. The learned Judge told the jury that the prisoner's answers were insufficient, and that to many very proper questions he had declined giving any answer; and, that, if the conduct of the prisoner, in giving insufficient answers to some of the questions, and refusing to answer others, proceeded from an intention to defraud his creditors, by preventing them from getting at his property, he was guilty of felony within the statute on which he was indicted : but, if they thought that the prisoner believed he was not a bankrupt, and that he was not bound to be examined, or, that he should prejudice his Sight to supersede his commission, in that case his conduct could not be said to proceed from an intent to defraud his creditors, and that his case was not within the statute. The jury convicted the prisoner. The first question for the opinion of the twelve Judges was, whether, the jury having found, that the insufficiency of the prisoner's answers, and his refusal to answer questions, proceeded from an intent to defraud his creditors, the prisoner was properly convicted ? It further appeared at the trial, that the act of bankruptcy, on which the commission against the prisoner was founded, was his lying in prison from the 4th of June, 1818, to the 15th of August, in the same year. Ou the 14th of April, 1818, the prisoner was committed to Newgate by the warrant of a magistrate, upon the certificate of the commissioners of bankrupts, under a commission which had been issued against him, which commission was afterwards superseded. On the 16th of the same month, he was brought by habeas corpus into the King's Bench, and surrendered in discharge of his bail in several actions ; but, it appearing that he was charged with the magistrate's warrant, he wjfu taken out of the custody of the marshal, and re-comnaitted to Newgate, charged with [311] the actions and warrant. On the 18th of April, the commissioners, 1 HROD. ft B. 313. THE KING V. PAGE 743 acting under the first commission, caused the prisoner to he brought before them, and committed him to Newgate, for refusing to be sworn, or to give any account of bis property. Chi the 24th of April, the same commissioners again committed the prisoner, for refusing to answer certain questions put to him. On the 27th of April, the prisoner was discharged by the Court of King's Bench from the warrants dated the 18th and 24th of April, and he was re-committed by the Court, until he should submit himself to be examined by the commissioners named in the commission, or the major part of them. On the 12th of May, the commissioners certified, that they did not further intend to examine the bankrupt, and that they consented to his discharge, if the Court of King's Bench thought proper to discharge him from imprisonment under their rule. On the 15th of May, 1818, he was brought by habeas corpus from Newgate, and committed by Holroyd J. to the King's Bench prison, charged with the different actions, in which he was detained, and also with the warrant and rule of the King's Bench. On the 4th of June, an order of Abbott J. was obtained by the prisoner's attorney, (which was drawn upon the 5th,) which discharged the prisoner from all the detainers against him, except those in the civil causes. That order was obtained in term time: it was not made a rule of Court, and was not acted upon, and the prisoner remained in the King's Bench prison till the 15th August, 1818, when the commission of bankrupt issued against him, under which he was required to be examined on the 3d October, 1818. The prisoner's attorney stated at the trial, that he had given the prisoner no notice of the order of discharge. It was insisted, on behalf of the prisoner, that although he continued in the King's Bench prison from the 4th of June to the 15th August, charged with debt, yet, as the magistrate's warrant, for which he was detained until he [312] should be discharged by due course of law, was not got rid of, and the rule of the Court of King's Bench (which, it was insisted, was not discharged by Mr. Justice Abbott's order) was still in force, the prisoner was not detained merely for debt, and that such detainer was therefore no act of bankruptcy, and the case Ex parte Bowes (4 Ves. 168) was referred to. The learned Judge expressed his opinion, that, as the prisoner could at any time get rid of these warrants of commitment, and the rule of the King's Bench, by submitting to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...v. YewensENR 5 M. & W. 149; S. C. 7 Dowl. 380. Jackson v. HumphrysENR 1 Salk. 273. Benton v. SuttonUNK 1 B. & P. 24. Rex v. PageENR 7 Price, 616; S. C. B. & B. 308. Ex parte Bowes 4 Ves. jun. 168. Drewe v. LainsonENR 11 Ad. & El. 537. Parsons v. Loyd 3 Wils. 341. Dand v. KingscoteENR 6 Mees......
-
Ex parte Frederick Crabb and Thomas Simpson
...were introduced to provide for the case of an imprisonment originally on a criminal charge, and a detainer for debt. In Rex v. Page (1 Brod. & Bing. 308), which was the case of an indictment for not answering, one of the questions was, whether there was a valid act of bankruptcy. At the tri......