3d, The claimant is brother of the bankrupt, and conjunct and confident with him. 4. Oath by Malcolm Maccallum, residing at Marine Place, Rothesay, claiming to rank and vote for the sum of £54 98. 1st, The oath produced, and on which the claimant voted, was executed prior to the bankrupt's tion, and is not conform to the statute. 2d, The IO U's produced are unstamped and vitiated; were not granted of the dates they bear, but after the bankrupt had become insolvent, and on the eve, or in contemplation of bankruptcy, and for the purpose of voting. They do not bear to be granted to the claimant, and are not sufficient to prove the debt claimed. 3d, The account or state of debt produced is not conform to the statute. 4th, The claimant is father of the bankrupt, and conjunct and confident with him. brother of the bankrupt, the Sheriff-Substitute must give effect to. Malcolm Maccallum, sen., founds his right to vote in respect of a debt for £54 upon two IO U's for £21 and £32 respectively, which are not addressed to any one. These acknowledgments by the bankrupt are unsupported by any state or account showing why they were given. They are improbative, are not in re mercatoria, and are granted to one who falls under suspicion of being conjunct and confident. sequestra-Giving effect to the cases of Cullen v. M Farlane, 4 D), 1522; Laidlaw & Son v. Wilson and Others, 6 D, 520; Aitken v. Stocks, 8 D, 509; Dyce v. Paterson, 9 D, 1142; and Gascoyne tendered is a good one. v. Munsford, 10 D, 231, it is impossible to hold that the vote The same reasoning applies to another vote tendered by Malcolm Maccallum, sen., in report of a debt of £126. That debt is supported by an IOU for have been given by the bankrupt to his father for retiring a £120, which, however, is addressed to him. It is alleged to bill, drawn by him upon, and accepted by the bankrupt, when it became due. The bill which is produced appears to have been regularly negotiated, and although now little better than a piece of waste paper (as it is utterly vitiated), may be looked at as an adminicle of the debt which it is said to instruct. The IO U apparently corresponds in date with the period when the bill fell due, viz., 30th November, 1860. But unfortunately for the verity of the document, it is written upon paper bearing the water mark 1861. Nor does the explanation offered that the date was 1861, and has been altered to 1860, mend the matter. For, if that be true, and the appearance of the writing certainly strongly corroborates it, then it was and so closely on the eve of bankruptcy, as to bring it under not granted on the maturity of the bill, but a year afterwards, the gravest suspicion of collusion. It further illustrates the danger of giving effect to such improbative documents in the date of one of them. The result is a considerable preponderhands of one who scrupled not admittedly to tamper with the ence in value in favour of the other competitor, John Miller. It is, therefore, scarcely necessary to notice the objections to The Sheriff-Substi the vote for Malcolm Maccallum, junior. supported by voucher of debt; it is most suspicious in charactute sustains these objections. This claim is altogether unter, and it is hardly credable that if the bankrupt had engaged to remunerate his brother with a yearly salary, that brother would allow three years to pass over without drawing so much as the stipulated amount for the first year. 3. Oath by Malcolm Maccallum, residing at Marine Place, Rothesay, claiming to rank and vote for the sum of £126 10s. 1st, The account or state of debt, and the documents produced, do not prove the debt as required by statute. In particular, the bill founded on has been cancelled and rendered worthless for any purpose, and the presumption ia, therefore, that it has either been paid or renewed by the bankrupt. The I O U, or acknowledgment produced, is unstamped and vitiated, was not granted of date it bears, but after the insolvency of the bankrupt, and on the eve, or in contemplation of bankruptcy, for the obvious purpose of supporting the claimant's vote in the election of trustee, and in the renewal of the bankrupt's personal protection; and farther, the said 10 U, or acknowledgment, does not form part of the cath produced. The Sheriff-Substitute has no difficulty in repelling the ob Sd, The claimant is father of the bankrupt, and con- jections to the votes for John Miller. It is said three of jonet and confident with him. 6. Oath by Daniel Macpherson, clothier, Rothesay, claimed to rank and vote for the sum of £9 19s 9d. > deduct. 21, The vote given by the competitor, John Kennedy M'Intyre, on the present claim, ought to be disallowed, in respect the mandate, which was granted blank by the claimant, was filled up by M'Intyre, in his own lavour, at the meeting for election of trustee, and immediately before voting on the claim. On these objections parties' procurators having been ard, the Sheriff pronounced the following Interlo The Sheriff-Substitute having considered the foregoing ate and report, with the notes of objections, and having Insed parties' procurators, Finds and declares, for the reason ased in the annexed Note, John Miller, accountant in Glas 4 to have been duly elected trustee on the sequestrated e of John Duncan Maccallum, bookseller and printer in ay: Finds John Kennedy M'Intyre, accountant in , the unsuccessful competitor, liable in the expenses de competition; allows an account thereof to be given in, raits the same to the auditor to tax and report, and SOTE-The objections stated to the vote for John Keny M'Intyre, affecting the claims lodged for Malcolm Macalan, sen., the father, and Malcolm Maccallum, jun., a these votes are bad, because of the insufficient designation of to. At one time the terms "stationer" and "bookseller" is Notice must here be taken of the highly reprehensible conduct of John Kennedy M'Intyre, in abstracting the oath and account tendered for Messrs Porteous & Hislop, wholesale booksellers and publishers, Glasgow, upon finding that the mandate in his favour to act for them was cancelled. The Sheriff-Substitute holds that John Kennedy M'Intyre, by the cancellation of his mandate, ceased to have any control over the oath and account, and that any further interference on his part therewith was illegal. He regards, therefore, that oath and account as still before the meeting, and the new mandatory, James Henderson Ferguson, entitled to deal with it for the interests of the mandants; and in respect James Henderson Ferguson claimed at said meeting of creditors to be ranked and to vote upon that account amounting to £3 5s 10d for the election of John Miller as trustee, that sum falls to be added to the value of the other votes recorded in his favour, making a total aggregate for John Miller of £71 19s 5d, and for John Kennedy M'Intyre of £15 5s 9d. For Miller-JOHN WILSON. For M'Intyre-JOHN M‘KIRDY. 8TH FEBRUARY, 1862. SHERIFF COURT, PAISLEY. (MR SHERIFF CAMPBELL.) date 23d December last, payable one day after date, fraudulently granted by the bankrupt to him, without value, on the eve of sequestration, for the purpose of his becoming the concurring creditor. The note specifies that the value for which it was granted was "of three received from him in loan." In the circumstances, and especially without production of the three documents referred to, the note is not a sufficient voucher to entitle the claimant to vote, and it does not prove the alleged loan of cash. A. M. MITCHELL and W. TOLMIE, competing, for Trus- documents given up by him to me for cash formerly A COMPETITION took place for the office of trustee on the For Mr Tolmie 1. Oath by John M. Mitchell, one of the partners of the firm of Kerr, Pender, & Mitchell, coal-masters, Glasgow, claiming to be ranked and vote as creditors for £62 2s 2d. This claim is said to be resting owing, conform to statement annexed to oath. The bill referred to in the statement, and produced as a voucher of the principal The following objections were stated for the com- part of the claim, was accepted without value. The sum petitors: For Mr Mitchell 1. Oath by Alexander Stronach, manager of the City of Glasgow Bank, and public registered officer thereof, claiming as a creditor, as manager foresaid, to be ranked for the sum of £187 8s 1d, and to vote for the sum of £127 88 1d. The claim is made in respect of three promissory notes and two bills, specified in the account indorsed on the affidavit. Two of these promissory notes, however, being those granted by M'Aslan & Muir, Nethercommon Printworks, Paisley, to the bankrupt, both of date 14th October, 1861, the one for £21 11s 2d, and payable six months from 1st October, 1861, and the other for £32 68 10d, and payable nine months from said lastmentioned date, were not produced at the meeting when the vote for the election of a trustee was taken, and, indeed, were not produced before the said election was over; and the claimant thus failed to comply with the injunction of the statute as regards the production of vouchers necessary to prove the debt he claimed upon, and was not entitled to vote in respect of the said two promissory notes. 2. Oath by James Anderson, a partner of the firm of James Anderson & Co., 33 Renfield Street, Glasgow, creditors claiming to be ranked and vote for £21 19s 3d sterling. 1st, The claim is for coals furnished, etc., but the particular items of the alleged furnishings not being given, the injunction of the statute-to produce such accounts and vouchers as are necessary to prove the debt-has not been complied with. 2d, The oath does not specify the sum for which the claimants claim to be ranked and vote, at least, it does so to the extent, and in any view they can vote for the amount of 19s 3d only. 3. Oath by Andrew Fisher, coal merchant, Paisley, claiming to be ranked and vote as a creditor for the sum of £57. This claimant is the concurring creditor in the sequestration, and conjunct and confident with the bankrupt. His claim is upon a promissory note for said sum, of of £45 of cash advanced by the claimants upon the 4th December last is not vouched. The claimant has not deducted the interest on the said bill of £50 from the date of sequestration till the same fell due, as required by the "Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act," 1856. 2. Oath of James Eaglesham, one of the partners of the firm of Dunlop & Eaglesham, coal-masters, Hurlford, claiming to be ranked and vote as creditors for £42 5s 5d. The Bills on which this claim is founded were accepted by the bankrupt within sixty days of the date of his sequestration, and are not of themselves sufficient vouchers of the existence of a prior debt. Besides, the bill for £22 8s is vitiated by erasure, in essentialibus. 3. Oath by William M. Gilmour, one of the partners of the firm of Scott & Gilmour, coal-masters, Glasgow, claiming to be ranked and vote as creditors for £81 0s 2d. The bills on which this claim is founded were accepted by the bankrupt within sixty days of his sequestration, and are not sufficient vouchers of the claim. 4. Oath by James Loudon, jun., coal merchant, Glasgow, claiming to be ranked and vote as a creditor for £12. This claim bears, by the oath, to be founded upon an IO U produced, while the document produced is not an IO U. The document produced is an acknowledgment of loan in favour of "James Loudon," and the claimant does not condescend upon, or produce, any title to the debt. The oath is defective in describing the voucher produced, and the debt is not vouched. Parties' procurators were heard on these objections and the Sheriff-Substitute thereafter pronounced the following Interlocutor: Having considered the notes of objections for both parties of the meeting of creditors for the election of trustee on the competitors for the office of trustee, together with the minutes sequestrated estate of the bankrupt, Hugh Anderson, coa merchant in Paisley, and the whole productions made at sai meeting, and in process, for the reasons assigned in the sub joined Note, Finds that the competitor, Alexander Moncries Mitchell, has a majority in value of good votes for his election and declares him to be trustee on the said sequestrated estat accordingly, and decerns: Finds the said Alexander Moncrie Mitchell entitled to expenses, of which allows an account t be given in, and remits the same, when lodged, to the audito of Court to tax and report. NOTE-At the meeting of creditors a small majority of votes were recorded in favour of Mr Tolmie-the votes in his favour being entered as amounting to £206 7s 4d, while those for Mr Mitchell amounted to £197 7s 9d. These votes have been rigidly scrutinised hinc inde, and the result of the scrutiny is expressed in the above Interlocutor. The first vote for Mr Tolmie objected to is that of Mr Stronach as representative of the City of Glasgow Bank. The vote is not objected to as wholly invalid, but it is said to be partially bad in respect of the non-production of two promissory notes by M'Aslan and Muir, both dated 14th October last, and included in the amount of the account indorsed on the affidavit, and upon which amount, under certain deductions, the vote was given. These two promissory notes were not produced when the vote on the question of the trusteeship was taken. The votes had all been recorded, each party had protested that its candidate had been elected, the business of the meeting had proceeded, and the election of the Commissioners taken place, when it appears that the two documents in question were produced. It is said that this production was unavailing as being too late, and that in respect of these two notes the vote is bad. The Sheriff-Substitute has had the greatest reluctance in giving efect to this objection, but he has felt himself compelled by the positive and unyielding phraseology of the statute to do 3. The creditors are required to meet for the election of a trustee within a limited time, and they, or their mandatories, who have produced their oaths and documents of debt, etc., shall then and there elect a fit person to be trustee. (Sec. 68, Bankrupt Act.) The election is made at the meeting whether the Sheriff be present or not, the only difference being that if be is not present the election is not declared at the time. Then who are entitled to vote? Those only who have produced their caths and ground of debt, or vouchers; and until these are produced a creditor is not entitled to act or vote. (Sec. B) It is clear that, though not declared, the election of the trusted was completed when the vote was taken and recried, and accordingly each competitor protested that he had the legal majority of votes. But if so, the present question is at an end, for no unvouched note, such as was the one in diste to the extent of the two promissory notes, can be held vald. To that extent it was not a vote. The subsequent production of the wanting vouchers at a later period was, in reference to the vote, as inadmissible as if a creditor, not Peat at the time the voting was taken, had come in and Caimed at a later stage of the proceedings to record his vote fr one of the parties, because the meeting, though it had ed to other business, had not actually adjourned. The cases of Woodside and Esplin, and of Watson and Cowan, referred to by Mr Tolmie, have no application to the present question, for both these cases occurred under the former atute, and it was held there that votes for a trustee were good without productions of vouchers, because these vouchers Sad been produced and marked at the election of interim factor, and had not been called for at the next meeting, being at for the trustee's election. It was admitted, and is apparent from the documents, that on this objection being susmited, a deduction of £39 168 5d falls to be made from Mr maach's vote. As will be seen from the following view of the ejections to the votes tendered for Mr Mitchell, this is rcent to deprive Mr Tolmie of his majority, and it is trefore unnecessary to consider the other objections to the rites tendered for him. VOTES FOR ME MITCHELL OBJECTED TO. Vote of Kerr, Pender & Co. for £62 2s 2d. The objecto this vote is repelled. Although the bill drawn by the ants and accepted by the bankrupt is of date two days dent to the cash lent, £45, still the bill having been nted, retired by the drawers, and produced with the davit, clears the case of difficulty. The creditor swears debt is due; and according to the ordinary course of the explanation is obvious that the bill was granted that money might be raised on it for the accommodation of ankrupt, but that the proceeds were not paid to him for days after the date of the bill. As the bill was retired by the drawers after it had been noted, the nature of the motion, coupled with the oath, makes it clear that the amount is sufficiently vouched. The objection that the credr had failed to deduct the interest between the date of the mqustration, and the date at which the bill fell due, was not insisted in. At all events, it would not diminish the vote by more than a shilling. 2. The vote of James Eaglesham for £42 5s 5d. The ob. jection that the bill for £22 8s included in the account claimed on is vitiated by erasure in essentialibus is repelled, in respect the Sheriff-Substitute is satisfied, after careful examination, that the bill is not erased. The word "three" in the currency of the bill has been gone over with the pen in part; but it obviously never was a different word, and it cannot be said, in any legal or rational sense, to have been changed or altered. 3. Vote by Wm. M. Gilmour for £81 03 2d. The objec tion to this vote is obviously untenable, and it was expressly withdrawn. 4. Oath of James Loudon for £12. The Sheriff-Substitute is rather disposed to sustain the objection to this vote, which is not vouched by the species of document called an IOU at all, but by something very like an unstamped receipt. It is unnecessary, however, to decide the question-because, irrespective of it, votes for Mr Mitchell have been sustained as good, to the extent of £185 7 9 Whereas, from the votes for Mr Tolmie, £206 7s 4d, there has been deducted, independently of all other objections, the sum of £39 16s 5d, Thus showing a majority of votes in favour of Mr Mitchell, amounting to For Mitchell-DAVID CAMPBELL. For Tolmie--DAVID YOUNG. 10TH FEBRUARY, 1862. £166 10 11 £18 16 10 SHERIFF COURT, GLASGOW. (MR SHERIFF BELL.) ROBERT M'FARLANE v. WILLIAM CAMERON. Husband and wife-Pawnbroker.-A married woman pawned articles of wearing apparel belonging to herself and her children. In a summary action for delivery without payment of the sums advanced, it was averred that the articles had been clandestinely abstracted, and pawned without her husband's knowledge or consent, which, if proved, would have been theft, (see Tweddle, June, 1841,) and entitled the petitioner to prevail, but as the clandestine abstraction, or that the advances were not in rem versum of the pursuer and his family had not been proved, petition was dismissed. THE pursuer presented a petition to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, that his wife, who resided in family with him, had been, as he believed, in the practice and habit, for many months past, of abstracting, clandestinely and theftuously removing from the pursuer's house, and without his knowledge or consent, direct or indirect, pawning, or pledging, or selling, not only her own wearing apparel and personal effects, but also the pursuer's personal and peculiar effects, and the clothing and effects of his infant children, in order to obtain the means of gratifying her desire for strong liquors; and the parties with whom, or to whom, said effects were so pledged, or pawned, or sold, were, inter alia, the defender and others; that the petitioner's wife did, in certain specified months in 1860, remove and abstract from the petitioner's house, and did pawn or pledge with the defender certain goods enumerated in the prayer of the petition, the property or in the lawful possession of the petitioner, and without his knowledge, consent, or connivance, and which gooda had been refused to be restored by the defender, although he had been called on to do so; and the petitioner craved that the defender should be decerned to deliver to the petitioner the articles enumerated as pawned with him by the petitioner's wife, and to find the defender liable in expenses. The defence was (1) Preliminary-the petition was not in competent form, in so far as it contains no specification of the articles sought to be recovered; (2) Merits —a denial of the libel, excepting so far as that the articles mentioned in the pawn-tickets produced, and bearing to be issued by the defender, were pledged with him, but this lawfully and in the usual course of business. On the record having been closed on the petition and minute, the preliminary defence was repelled, and before farther answer proof was allowed to both parties. This Interlocutor was appealed on the point of form by the defender, and parties' procurators having been heard, Sir Archibald Alison pronounced the following judgment: Having heard parties' procurators under the defender's appeal upon the Interlocutor appealed against, preliminary plea, and whole process, in respect the articles alleged to have been stolen and pledged, though not specified in the narrative part of the petition, are fully described in the prayer thereof: and in respect it is not necessary to repeat the specification twice over in the petition; and by the present statutory form of summary petitions, the description of the articles sought to be delivered up should be in the prayer of the petition, as it regulates and limits the decree which may be pronounced; dismisses the appeal, and adheres to the Interlocutor appealed against. Proof was then led by both parties, and their procurators having been heard thereon, the Sheriff-Substitute pronounced the following Interlocutor: Having resumed consideration of the proof, productions, and whole process, Finds that the Christian name of the pursuer's wife is Mary Anne, and the nineteen pawn-tickets, No. 6, which were admittedly issued by the defender, and were found in the pursuer's house, all bear, with three exceptions, to have been granted to Ann M'Farlane, or to M. A. M'Farlane, and the excepted three bear to have been granted to Margaret M'Farlane: Finds that the pursuer's averment, which has not been specially contradicted by the defender is, that the whole tickets were granted to his wife, and that it was she who pawned the goods therein referred to: Finds that the pursuer has deponed that the silver chain, the coral beads, the sheet, and the set of children's beads mentioned in certain of said tickets, are his property; and his daughters, Margaret and Eliza, have sworn to the other articles as being a part of their wearing apparel; but, Finds that neither the pursuer himself, nor any of his daughters, who are the only witnesses examined for him, has deponed either that the articles were clandestinely taken out of the pursuer's house, or that the advances obtained upon them were not in rem versum of the pursuer himself, or his family: Finds that the pursuer has also failed to prove the averments set forth in the petition, that his said wife "has recently become very dissipated," and that she pawned the said articles "in order to obtain means for gratifying her desire for strong liquors:" Finds that, in these circumstances, the pursuer-having neither proved a clandestine abstraction, nor a misappropriation of the proceeds-has not laid a sufficient foundation to entitle him to have effect given to the conclusion of the petition, which is for immediate delivery to him of the impledged effects: Therefore, and under reference to the annexed note, sustains the defences, and dismisses the action; but, in respect the defender ought not to have continued to receive articles in pledge from a married woman without inquiring as to whether the husband was a consenting party, finds no expenses due, and decerns. NOTE-An important question at law might have arisen in this case, had the pursuer proved all he avers in his petition; but, as the facts actually stand upon the proof, there is no It is but imperfectly proved that the articles enumerated in sufficient foundation upon which to rest any question of law. the petition were pawned by the pursuer's wife; and it is equally imperfectly proved that they belong to the pursuer. But more than this, there is no evidence that they were carried clandestinely out of the pursuer's house; there is no evidence that the pursuer or his family received no benefit from the advances made upon them; and there is no evidence that these advances were exclusively applied by the pursuer's It may or may not be theft for a wife to pawn her own or wife to the gratification of a vicious passion for strong drink. her children's clothes, or other household effects, for such vicious purpose, and unknown to her husband. If it be theft, the husband would be entitled to vindicate the possession of the stolen effects wherever found. If it be only breach of trust, it would be more difficult to hold that he could recover them without repaying the advances. But, as regards the present case, it is clear that the pursuer cannot succeed in his own oath, that he did not consent to the pledging, unac getting back the impledged effects, merely on the strength of companied with any statement that he received no benefit from the advances. Even if the pursuer's deposition as a witness had been much fuller than it is, it would have been impossible to have held the case established on the unsup ported testimony of a party. In the case of Tweddle, March 6th, 1840, and June 9th, 1841, which went up to the Court of Session, from the Sheriff Court of Renfrewshire, only on points of form, the Sheriff, whose judgment was not interfered with on the merits, before ordaining the pawnbroker to restore to the husband articles of wearing apparel which had been pledged by the wife, expressly found it instructed by the proof "that the wife's pawning of the goods was not occasioned by family necessities, but was resorted to by her for money to get intoxicating liquors for herself." In the present instance, besides that the whole case is made to depend on the pursuer's own statement, no tortuous misapplication of the advances on the goods is deponed to at all. Without such misapplication there could be no theftuous taking by the wife, although it may be true that she is not entitled, simply in virtue of her prepositura, to sell or pawn household effects. In the case of Kilgour, December 8th, 1851, (Shaw's Justiciary Reports,) the Lord Justice Clerk said: "I do not think it necessary to deter mine whether, if a wife pawned her husband's clothes for drink, it would be theft. The ordinary case of pawning by a third party, to whom goods have been entrusted for a specified pur pose, is different from that of a wife who is entrusted with the care of them, and whose exigencies may depend as much on her husband's conduct as her own." On the whole, it will be distinctly understood that this case is not decided on general principle, but only on the specialty arising from the defective proof. In finding no expenses due, an opinion is meant to be indicated that pawnbrokers act imprudently, if not improperly, in receiving household goods in pawn from married women, without inquiring whether the transaction is sanctioned by the husband. This Interlocutor was appealed, and parties' procurators having been heard, the Sheriff, Sir Archibald Alison, pronounced the following judgment:— Finds that the present action is brought against the defender, who is a pawnbroker, for delivery of the articles specified in the petition, upon the allegation that the pursuer's wife had, without his knowledge and consent, and not for his property, and that without repayment of the sums advanced or the family's behoof, pawned the articles, being the pursuer's upon them: Finds it pleaded, in support of the action, that the pursuer's wife had become dissipated in her habits, aud had pledged, in order to raise money to procure intoxicating liquors, not only her own clothes, but those of her husband and children, which she thus theftuously abstracted and pledged with the defender, without her husband (the pursuer's) knowledge or consent: Finds that the nineteen pawn defender, and were found in the pursuer's house; and the purtickets, No. 6 produced, were admittedly issued by the suer's averment, which is not specially contradicted, is that the whole of these tickets were granted to his wife, and that it was she who pawned the articles referred to in them: Finds 10TH FEBRUARY, 1862. SHERIFF COURT, ROSS-SHIRE. (MR SHERIFF CAMERON.) DAVID Ross and WILLIAM COPLAND, Competing for the Office of Trustee on the Sequestrated Estate of WILLIAM MACKENZIE & Co., Merchants, Ullapool. Bankruptcy-Conjunct and confident.-Claim by executors on a bankrupt firm, with the partners of which the deceased was closely related, admitted in a competition for the office of Trustee, but further investigation recommended to the Trustee before ranking. it pleaded in defence that the articles referred to, and for which the pawn tickets produced were granted, were pawned bona fide by the pursuer's wife, with the defender, in the ordinary course of business: Finds it pleaded by the pursuer, in point of law, that, stante matrimonio, no such thing as goods in communion exist, and that this emerges only on the dissolution of the marriage, and that Stair's observations on this head are overruled by the later decisions, especially that of Shaw v. Christie, 18th November, 1842; and that the wife's prepositura does not extend to such acts as are here libelled on; and, in particular, that she cannot borrow money or pledge her husband's clothes or effects without his knowledge or consent, express or implied: Finds that it is further pleaded by the pursuer that the opinions of the judges in the case of Joseph Kilgour, 8th December, 1851, in the High Court of Justiciary, go to this, that a husband may commit theft by intermitting with his wife's estate, excluded from his jus mariti, and that a wife may commit theft by abstracting from Prescription-Vecennial.-Business Books and relative ber husband the goods which belong to him jure mariti, and that in the case of Tweddle v. Duncan, June, 1841, it was and by the Court of Session that articles of wearing apparel, pledged by a wife without her husband's consent, might be reclaimed by him, and that in the Sheriff Court at common law, without applying to the Justices of Peace, under Section V of the Pawnbrokers' Act: Finds it proved, in point of fars, in the present case, that the pursuer's family consisted of himself, his wife, and three children, the eldest 14 and the youngest 3 years of age; that all the pawn tickets are in the pursuer's wife's name, bear dates in April, May, June, July, and August, 1860: Finds that the tickets describe the articles pledged in a very general way, but that the defender exhibited for identification the goods mentioned in the petition: Finds it proved that the silver chain, the coral beads, the sheet, and of children's beads, mentioned in certain of the tickets, are the pursuer's property, and that part of the articles pawned are his children's clothes, and that all the articles belong to the pursuer, and that he never sold, pledged, or gave away xay of these articles, nor did any one else do so with his knowleze or consent: Finds that the other articles libelled on are ved to be the pursuer's and his daughters' property, and that they never sold, pledged, or gave them away to any one: Finds it proved that during the months in question the purer's wife was living in family with him, and that she sent me of the articles to the defender's to be pawned by the dren: Finds it proved that the pursuer found the pawn keta produced by accident lying on the ground, and that he that way first got notice of the abstracting and pawning the articles: Finds that the general preposition that a wife act dispose of, gift, or pawn her husband's effects, is not Leputed by the defender, but it is pleaded for him that the special circumstances of this case, the pursuer is not titled to demand delivery of the articles pledged, without payment of the sums advanced upon them; and that the Recessities of the poor, and the impossibility of pawnbrokers aking advances on goods in the ordinary course of their Dess, inquiring as to whether the consent of husbands had previously given to their wives pawning particular artiare sufficient to support the Interlocutor under review: Fs that this plea of the defender's is in the present case wel founded, seeing it is not proved by the pursuer that the articles pledged with the defender were carried clandestinely of the pursuer's house by his wife, and there is no evidence that the pursuer and his family derived no benefit from the advances made upon the goods, and no evidence to show that the advances were exclusively applied by the pursuer's wife the gratification of her passion for intoxicating liquors, as arred in the petition; while it may be that the pawning of e articles by the pursuer's wife was occasioned by the sities and exigencies of the pursuer's family: Therefore eres to the Interlocutor under review, sustaining the defences, and dismissing the action; and finds no expenses th, though not for the reason stated by the Sheriff-Substibut because no appeal has been lodged for the defender at the Interlocutor as regards expenses, and the Interote is therefore final on that head, and is not subject to Se review of the Sheriff, Act. J. L. LANG. vouchers of entries, held not to fall under the vecennial prescription. The Sheriff-Substitute having made avizandum, and considered the foregoing minutes, and the oaths and productions, the office of trustee, viva voce, Finds that Mr David Ross, and having heard the agents of the competing candidates for agent at Dingwall for the Caledonian Bank, has been duly kenzie & Co., merchants in Ullapool, and William Mackenzie elected trustee on the sequestrated estates of William Macand Alexander Mackenzie, the individual partners of that company, and declares the said David Ross to be trustee accordingly. NOTE.-The competing candidates for the office of trustee are Mr William Copland, accountant in Glasgow, in the interest of the south country creditors of the bankrupts, and Mr David Ross, bank agent at Dingwall, supported by several claimants who may be denominated, with scarcely an exception, the family creditors. Alt. WM, BURNS. The claim produced and voted upon by both parties amount to £3983 148 10d-creditors and mandatories holding claims for £2740 18s 7d of this sum supported Mr Ross, and the rest, claiming to the extent of the balance of £1242 16s 3d, voted for Mr Copland. But one individual claim in the interest of Mr Ross, that of the executors of Dr James John Mackenzie, amounts to £1669 108 1d, and, if this claim and the vote given in respect of it were bad, Mr Ross's support would be reduced to £1071 8s 6d-a sum less by £171 7s 9d than the amount of the claims and votes relied on by Mr Copland. Thus, assuming the claims constituting the entire sum of £1242 16s 3d to be all unexceptionable, Mr Copland, as having a majority in value, would be entitled to prevail in the contest, and to have the office of trustee. It follows that the result of the competition depends upon the solution of the question as to the validity of the claim and vote for the £1669 10s 1d. True, that objections of various kinds have been stated and urged on the part of the candidates respectively, to almost all the claims on either side; and the Sheriff-Substitute is of opinion, on the one hand, that the claim of the Aberdeen Town and County Bank for £59 15s 5d, and the claim of Messrs Dale & Ryrie, of Liverpool, for £124 58 ld, both in the interest of Mr Koss, are bad as they now stand-the first, in respect the value of the security of the acceptors in the bills, who are bound to relieve the bankrupts, has not been estimated and deducted; and the second, because the account current, referred to and founded upon in the oath, has not been produced; and, on the other, that although some of the Glasgow affidavits and claims exhibit slight verbal inaccuracies, they are all substantially correct and true. With regard, then, to the claim of £1669 10s ld, to which the opposition on the part of Mr Copland has been chiefly directed, the Sheriff-Substitute has arrived at the conclusion that it is wellfounded, and affords legitimate and sufficient support to the vote. The late Murdo Mackenzie, merchant in Ullapool, died in 1821. Upon the occurrence of that event, his stock in-trade, and the debts due and belonging to him, were sold and transferred by his widow, as acting for herself and her children in non-age, to the firm of William Mackenzie & Co. then formed. The value of this property was to remain in the hands of the new company, at interest, as a debt due to Mrs Mackenzie, and the children, according to their respective rights. Her |