ed that it ought to be shewn that some writs were out against him it was overruled by Lord Kenyon. He cited also Miller v. Turner,* Jackman v. Nightingale,† Though a man orders himself to be denied, yet if he be not denied he is not a bankrupt. So in Garret v. Moule, keeping house with intent to delay a creditor is not sufficient to constitute an act of bankruptcy unless there be also a defraud or hindrance of the ereditor. So in For v. Saunders,§ aud Ex parte Cockshott, if a man should make a fraudulent conveyance whereby it was intended to defraud or delay his creditors, and it was clear from the subject-matter of the conveyance that it could not defeat or delay the credi tors it would not be an act of bankruptcy." From all which cases he concluded that upon the other clauses of the same statute the construction had been that a mere intention of delay was not sufficient, but that an actual delay was necessary to make a man a bankrupt.

COCKELL, Serj. and WooD, contrà, in support of the rule. "From the report it is clear that the learned Judge left it to the jury that it was necessary, in or der to find Walmsley a bankrupt that there should not only be an intent to delay, but that some creditor should be delayed. Now the latter part of that proposition is from the words of the statute a question of some doubt, and Lord Kenyon has spoken of the case of Fowler v. Padgett,¶ in terms of disapprobation. Leave ing a house with a view to defraud or delay creditors is an act of bankruptcy within the words of the statute. Departing from his dwelling-house becomes an act of bankruptcy, or not according to the intent of the

*Montague, 167. Bull. N. P. 40.5 T. Rep. 575. § Couke's B. L. 4 Edit. 74. || 3 Bro. C. C. 502. ¶ Cook B. L, 82. last edit, cites Hall's case, Stra. 809.

2

1806

ROBERTSON versus LIBDELLA

1806. party. His very absenting himself will be a sufficient ROBERTSON prima facie evidence of his intent to delay.

versus

The

statute 13 Eliz. c. 7, has only the words to defraud LIDDELL. or hinder creditors; and the statute 1 Jac. I. c. 15, is in order to give, further benefits to creditors, as against the effects of bankrupts, and it contains the words, to the intent or whereby they may be defeated or delayed,' and it is a very strange construction, to say that it shall narrow the cases of bankruptcy, when the recital is to give a further remedy. In that case or must not only be construed and; but may must also be construed shall. To keep house alone is difficult to be proved against a man, because it cannot well be shewn that he did keep house, without a denial of him being actually made.".

LAWRENCE, J. "No, he might give orders not to admit any one, and to deny him."

LE BLANC, J. "There is no case, I believe, between the statutes of Eliz. and that of James."

- Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, C. J." There is some doubt about the facts. There should be a new trial, for the purpose of a special verdict. The verdict as, it stands is improper as to one point, to raise this question; for the intent is clear; and probably there will be further evidence of the delay of some creditor."

GROSE, J. "I dare say there will be further evidence. Hundreds of commissions have been supported upon mere evidence of going away.'

LAWRENCE, J. "In the case of Fowler v. Padgett, it was understood that a mere intent of delay would be sufficient; upon the case of Woodyear, Lord KENYON and ASHURST, J. said or must be read and; GROSE, J. did not go upon that ground; and I thought that the whole sentence Risst be reconciled.

Bar

nard v. Vaughan went upon the ground that the other cases had decided it."

LE BLANC, J. "It struck the court that it would be very hard, if a party went out on a fair purpose that he should be a bankrupt, because some creditor were actually delayed."

RULE ABSOLUTE for a new trial.

1806..

ROBERTSON

versus

LIDDELLA

The KING against the INHABITANTS of BINEGAR.—

7th May, 1806.

Estoppel.

By order of two justices, not appealed from, J. S. and Betty his wife Pauper. Set tlement by were removed to M. N. as their last place of settlement, and, after marriage. Or. wards, the said Betty as the wife of J. S. was removed from the der of justices. parish of W. to the said parish of M. N., without appeal. Betty went and served in the parish of B. and resided forty days there, under a hiring for a year, and returned to M. N. and there became chargeable. J. S. was, at the quarter sessions, convicted of vagrancy, for deserting his said wife ; but, upon appeal against an order of justices removing the said Betty from M. N. to the parish of B., the appellants produced evidence to shew the marriage a nullity, which was not denied; held, that, after the orders unappealed from, and the conviction, the respondents were estopped from producing such evidence.

Order of removal "upon complaint that the paupers lately came and intruded into the said parish of K., endeavouring there to settle as inhabitants thereof, contrary to law, not having any way. acquired or obtained a legal settlement therein, and are likely to become chargeable thereto, and we do upon due examination, adjudge the said complaint and premises to be true, and we do further, upon the examination of the said Betty the wife of J. S. upon her oath, adjudge that they were last legally settled at &c.,” held to contain a sufficient averment of their being then actully intruding, and of their then present settlement, and also to be upon suficient examination, although only upon that of the wife; for a wife may know her husband's last place of settlement of her own knowledge.

1806.

The KING

versus

UPON hearing the appeal of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Binegar, in

the Thabitants the county of Somerset, to the court of quarter session of BINEGAR. for that county, against an order of Sir J. C. Hippesley, Bart. and William Bingham, two of his majesty's justices of the peace of and for the said county of Somerset, for the removal of Elizabeth Walters single woman from the parish of Midsomer Norton in the said county of Somerset to the said parish of Binegar ¿ That court confirmed the said order of removal subject to the opinion of this court on the following case: On the 25th April, 1793, by an order under the hands and seals of two justices of the peace of the said county made on the complaint of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Kilmersdon, it was complained and adjudged in the following words, viz. that " John Savage labourer, and Betty his wife (the said Betty being the pauper above removed,) lately came and intruded themselves into the said parish of Kilmersdon, endeavouring there to settle as inhabitants thereof contrary to law, not having any way acquired or obtained a legal settlement therein, and are likely to become chargeable thereto : We do upon due examination adjudge the said complaint and premises to be true, and we do further, upon the examination of the said Betty, the wife of the said John Savage, taken upon her oath, adjudge that the said John Savage and Betty his wife were last legally settled in the said parish of Midsomer Norton." And the said Betty was removed from the said parish of Kilmersdon to the said parish of Midsomer Norton; but against this order of removal there was no appeal. On the 20th July, 1799, by another order under the hands and seals of two justices of the said county, made on the complaint of the churchwardens and overscers of the poor of the parish of Willow in the said

County, it was complained and adjudged in the follow

1806.

versus

the Inhabitants

ing words, viz." that Elizabeth Savage, (being the said The KINO pauper) lately came to inhabit in the said parish of Willow, contrary to law, not having any ways gained of BIN ROAR a legal settlement there, nor produced any certificate, owning herself to be settled elsewhere, and that the said Elizabeth Savage is actually become chargeable to the said parish of Willow, we the said justices upon due examination of the said complaint and premises, and also upon the examination of the said Elizabeth Savage upon oath, before us, and upon due consideration by us had in the premises, do adjudge the same complaint and premises to be true; and we do likewise adjudge that the last lawful settlement of her the said Elizabeth Savage is in the said parish of Midsomer Norton; and she was therefore removed from the said parish of Willow to the said parish of Midsomer Nor ton and against this order likewise there was no ap peal. At Lady-day, 1803, the said Elizabeth hired her self for a year at the wages of four guineas, as a dairy maid, to James Brookes of Binegar, and served with him, in that parish, for sixteen months. The said John Savage is still living. After the said Elizabeth left the service of the said James Brookes, she returned. to the said parish of Midsomer Norton, and became chargeable to that parish. In May last, the said John Savage was committed to the house of correction, for having run away and left the said Elizabeth therein called his wife so chargeable, until the next quarter sessions held for the said county in July last, when the charge in the said commitment being duly proved to the said court of sessions, upon oath, in the presence of the said John Savage to be true, the said court adjudged the said John Savage to be a rogue and vagabond, and a male upwards of twelve years of age; and ordered him to be detained in the said house of correc tion for the space of three days, and that before he