References: [1829] EngR 293, (1829) M & M 273, (1829) 173 ER 1157
Links: Commonlii
Ratio:In trespass for entering plaintiff’s dwelling-house and taking his goods on a plea justifying the trespass by proceedings under a commission of bankruptcy, and replication taking issue on the act of bankruptcy, the defendant is entitled to begn. Letters, bearing postmarks before the act of bankruptcy, and found in the alleged bankrupt’s possession after it, containing statements of maters material to the act of bankruptcy, are admissible without calling the writer, as evidence against the alleged bankrupt, to shew that he received iintimation of these facts, though not to prove their truth A fraudulent delivery of goods is not an act of bankruptcy, unless it be in the nature of a gift or transfer, so that when goods are removed with intent to delay a creditor, but the party to whose custody they are given has no claim given to him over them, this is not an act of bankruptcy At all events such delivery of goods by his agent, carrying on his business, without his direction, is no act of bankruptcy.
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Cotton v James, Gent One, & C (Commonlii, [1829] EngR 296, (1829) 3 Car & P 505, (1829) 172 ER 522)
. . - See Also – Cotton v James ((1830) 1 B & Ad 128, Commonlii, [1830] EngR 713, (1830) 1 B & Ad 128, (1830) 109 ER 735)
The burden of proof can shift during the course of a trial. Silence in circumstances in which a party would be expected to answer might convert evidence into proof. . . - See Also – James, Gent, One &C, v Cotton (, Commonlii, [1831] EngR 127, (1831) 7 Bing 266, (1831) 131 ER 103)
. .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13-Jul-16
Ref: 322161