76

goods of A, and sells them to B, in his own name, is a trader.

But a person who sold goods by commission was not, previous to the 6 Geo. 4. c. 16, subject to the bankrupt laws. Doe d. Barraud v. Lawrence, 2 C. & P. 134. [Abbott]

The widow of a livery-stable-keeper and horsedealer purchased borses to let out to hire, and occasionally sold some, but had taken out no licence: Held, that this was sufficient to constitute a trading within the meaning of the bankrupt laws; and where, on the judge's intimating such an opinion, the defendant's counsel acquiesced, and the question of trading was not left to the jury, the Court refused to grant a new trial. Martin v. Nightingale, 4 Law J. C.P. 127; s. c. 3 Bing. 421.

A husband being, in right of his wife, seised of a farm during the coverture, converts the soil into bricks, of which he manufactures and sells great quantities he is not a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws. Ex parte Burgess, 5 Law J. Chanc. 182, s. c. 2 G. & J. 183.

A commission of bankrupt cannot be supported against a person under age. O'Brien v. Currie, 3 C. & P. 283. [Burrough]

(B) ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY.

[See the several acts of bankruptcy specified in the third and five following clauses of 6 Geo. 4. c. 16,-3 Law J. Stat. 15.]

(a) Departing the realm.

Going abroad being an equivocal act, and departing the realm being a continuing act of bankruptcy : Held, that letters written by the party absconding, during his departure and absence, shewing the motive of his departure, were admissible in evidence, and sufficient to establish an act of bankruptcy; but statements or declarations of a bankrupt made at a time long subsequent to the departure, or unconnected with the state of his mind at the time, are not receivable. Rawson v. Haigh, 2 Law J. C.P. 130, s. c. 2 Bing. 99, s. c. 1 C. & P. 77, s. c. 9 B. Mo. 217.

(b) Departure from dwelling-house and otherwise absenting himself.

To constitute an act of bankruptcy, by a debtor absenting himself, in order to delay creditors, it is not indispensably necessary that a creditor should be delayed. Hallen v. Homer, 1 C. & P. 108. [Park]

An omission to keep an engagement to meet a creditor at a given place, without any intention to delay creditors, is not an act of bankruptcy. Tucker v. Jones, 2 Bing. 2, s. c. as Toleman v. Jones, 9 B. Mo. 24.

If a debtor make an appointment to meet and pay his creditor, at a certain time and place, and fail in keeping his appointment, this will be an act of bankruptcy, with intent to delay the creditor, unless the cause of failure be satisfactorily explained. Widger v. Browning, 5 Law J. K.B. 77.

Two partners left their shop, under the pretence of getting bills discounted to pay their creditors, and told their shopman, if any person called, to make some excuse, and say they were not in the way. On the following day, the shopman, without any further directions, denied them to a creditor, although

they were then at home: Held, that, in the absence of evidence of the bankrupts' having actually tried to get the bills discounted, the jury were warranted in finding they had left the place to delay creditors. Deffle v. Desanges, 8 Taunt. 671.

If a trader absents himself, not in order to avoid a creditor, with whom he has made an appointment, but merely to avoid the execution of a bail-bond, which he had undertaken, on being discharged out of custody from an arrest, to execute, this is not an act of bankruptcy. Schooling v. Lee, 3 Stark. 149. [Abbott]

A trader appointed a creditor to meet him at his house on a particular day, the creditor accordingly went, when the trader's wife said that her husband was gone out; and having waited for more than half an hour, the creditor went away, the bankrupt not having returned: Held, that it was properly left to the jury to say, whether the trader had left his house to avoid or delay a creditor; and they having found in the affirmative, the Court refused to disturb the verdict. Charrington v. Brown, 4 Law J. C.P. 141.

(c) Beginning to keep house.

An act of bankruptcy is committed by a denial to a collector of the King's taxes. Sanderson v. Laferest, 1 C. & P. 46. [Burrough]

The denial of a trader to a person who calls to inform him of the dishonour of a bill, is an act of bankruptcy, without further proof of the party being a creditor, if the bankrupt so considered him. Bleasby v. Crossley, 2 C. & P. 213. [Best]

A, a trader at W, on coming to London, went to the counting-house of C, where he generally transacted business with other persons; however, he desired C to deny him to a ereditor, and concealed himself in C's house when the creditor called: Held to establish an act of bankruptcy. Curteis v. Willes, 4 D. & R. 224, s. c. 1 R. & M. 58, s. c. 1 C. & P. 211. If a man has a private house and a place of business, a denial at the former to a creditor, is an act of bankruptcy. Park v. Prosser, 1 C. & P. 176. [Abbott]

A trader ordered his servant to say, that he was not at home if any creditors called, and he was accordingly denied, but was at that period ill in bed: Held, that it was properly left to the jury, whether this was a beginning to keep house with an intent to commit an act of bankruptcy, and that they were warranted in finding that it was. Lazarus v. Waithman, 5 B. Mo. 313.

On the 20th of May a partner in a banking firm having been arrested at his private dwelling, distant several miles from the house of business, and having promised to execute a bail-bond when required, immediately ordered his servants not to let into the house any person whom they did not know, as he was fearful of being arrested again; on the 21st the doors were kept shut, and no person was admitted until it had been ascertained from the window who the applicant was: Held, that although no creditor was actually denied, an act of bankruptcy was committed on that morning. Harvey v. Ramsbottom, 1 Law J. K.B. 25, s. c. 1 B. & C. 55, s. c. 2 D. & R. 142.

Where a trader confined in the King's Bench prison obtained a day-rule and went to his place of

business, and instead of returning to the rules, slept at his house, and caused the shop to be closed earlier than usual, and ordered himself to be denied to the clerk of a creditor: Held, that this was sufficient evidence to constitute an act of bankruptcy; and that it was properly left to the jury to say, whether the shutting up the shop at an earlier hour than usual, was not done as a colour to enable the party to cause himself to be denied to his creditors. Hughes v. Gilman, 3 Law J. C.P. 199, s. c. 10 B. Mo. 480, s.c. 1 C. & P. 32.

(d) Fraudulent conveyance or transfer.
[See post, L.]

An act of bankruptcy is committed within the meaning of the 1 Jac. 1. c. 15, by a trader conveying all his property to a particular creditor. Worsley v. Demattos, 2 Ken. 218, s. c. 1 Burr. 467.

Where a lease was to become void, upon assignment without the lessor's consent,-it was holden, that the lessee having assigned all his property, real and personal, to the trustee, for the benefit of bis creditors, had not thereby forfeited the lease, such deed amounting to an act of bankruptcy. Doe d. Lloyd v. Powell, 5 B. & C. 308, s. c. 8 D. & R.

35.

A fair and bonâ fide sale of the whole of a trader's property is not, of itself, an act of bankruptcy.

The party who impeaches the sale of the whole of a bankrupt's property, must shew some facts from which fraud may be inferred. Rose v. Haycock, 5 Law J. K.B. 210.

Where A and B, being in embarrassed circumstances, conveyed to C all the machinery in their mills, and all the machinery to be substituted in lieu thereof, to secure 3,0291. 9s. 7d., with interest, defeasible, however, upon the payment of that sum with interest, by instalments of 501. in each succeeding month, but had other property: Held, that this was not per se an act of bankruptcy, but that it should have been left to the jury to say, whether the conveyance was a fraudulent preference. Balme v. Hutton, 2 Y. & J. 101.

(e) Lying in Prison.

To constitute an act of bankruptcy, by lying in prison for two months, the whole of the day of arrest might be reckoned. Saunderson v. Gregg, 3 Stark. 72. [Abbott]

An act of bankruptcy was complete by lying in prison two months, even though the bankrupt had the benefit of day-rules, and was seen once at his own shop during that period. Soames v. Watts, 1 C. & P. 400. [Best] [See 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 5, whereby lying in prison for 21 days is declared an act of bankruptcy.]

An escape is not constituted within 21 Jac. 1. c. 19. s. 2, by a prisoner being carried through another county, with permission of the sheriff, and calling upon his attorney; hence the bankruptcy will run from the day of the arrest. Baby v. Rose, 2 Ken. 173, s. c. 1 Burr. 437.

Quare, whether the act of bankruptcy, by lying in prison twenty-one days, under the stat. 6 G. 4. c. 16. s. 5, have relation back to the first day of the imprisonment? Tucker v. Barrow, 3 C. & P. 85, s. c. 1 M. & M. 137. [Tenterden]

77

(f) Compounding with Petitioning Creditor. Where the bankrupt's assets in the hands of the assignee are greater than the amount of his debts, and the creditors who have proved consent to the supersedeas, and the petitioning creditor receives the whole amount of his debt, interest, and costs, it is not a compounding within the 8th section of 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. Ex parte Smith, 2 G. & J. 291.

(C) OF THE PETITIONING CREDITO.
(a) Who may be.

A commission is not valid, where a married woman, as petitioning creditor, in respect of a debt due to her in autre droit, strikes the docket alone, without the husband joining. Ex parte Mogg, 6 Law. J. Chanc. 162, s. c. 2 G. & J. 397.

To enable a secretary to a company to sue out a commission, particular words must be used; therefore, where a private statute authorized an insurance society to sue and be sued in the name of their secretary, and to commence all actions and suits in his name as nominal plaintiff,—It was held, that those words did not comprehend a petition for a commission. Guthrie v. Fiske, 3 B. & C. 178, s. c. 5 D. & R. 24, s. c. 3 Stark. 153.

(b) Duties and Liabilities.

Where a petitioning creditor, previous to issuing a commission, had taken out execution against the bankrupt, for part of the debt on which the commission issued, the Court directed him to furnish the assignees with the particulars of his debt, and the time at which it was contracted. Ex parte Glover, 2 G. & J. 60.

A petitioning creditor, under a separate commission, will be ordered to exhibit the proceedings, in order to support a subsequent joint commission. Ex parte Harrison, 2 G. & J. 135.

Where the bankrupt's assets in the hands of the assignees are greater than the amount of his debts and the creditors who have proved consent to the supersedeas, and the petitioning creditor receives the whole amount of his debt, interest and costs, it is not a compounding within the 8th section of 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. Ex parte Smith, 2 G. & J. 291.

The petitioning creditor is liable to the messenger for his charges for services before the party is declared a bankrupt, although there be a due declaration of bankruptcy, and the messenger's bill is ordered by the commissioners to be paid by the assignee out of the estate. Burwood v. Cant, 2 C. & P. 123. [Abbott]

(c) Debt, amount and nature of.

Interest cannot be added to the principal due on a bill of costs, so as to constitute a valid petitioning creditor's debt. In re Burgess, 8 Taunt. 660, s. c. 2 B. Mo. 745.

To prove a good petitioning creditor's debt, it must be shewn, that on the specific day, as much as 100l. was due. Gresley v. Price, 2 C. & P. 48. [Abbott] A good petitioning creditor's debt is not proved by shewing that the bankrupt has drawn or indorsed a bill for £100, which is dishonoured, unless it appear, that the acceptor has made default. Giles v. Powell, 2 C. & P. 259. [Best]

The petioning creditor having given a cheque on

bis bankers, to a person who afterwards became bankrupt; and such petitioning creditor being appointed one of his assignees, and becoming possessed of his papers: Held, that the payment of the cheque must be proved, in order to constitute the petitioning creditor's debt. Bleasby v. Crossley, 4 Law J. C.P. 136, s. c. 3 Bing. 430, s. c. 2 C. & P. 213.

A commission may issue at the instance of a creditor, whose debt has been omitted in the schedule by an insolvent who had obtained his discharge. Ex parte Shuttleworth, 2 G. & J. 68.

Before application for the substitution of a new petitioning creditor's debt to support the commission, the one on which it was founded must be expunged. Ex parte Chappell, 2 G. & J. 131: s. P. In re Williams, 5 Law J. Chanc. 76.

(d) When contracted.

A debt barred by the Statute of Limitations is not a valid debt, to support a petition for a commission of bankruptcy. [But by the new Bankrupt Act, 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 18, if, after adjudication under a commission, the petitioning creditor's debt be found insufficient to support the commission, the Lord Chancellor, upon the petition of any creditor who has proved a sufficient debt, may order the commission to be proceeded in; provided the debt of the second petitioning creditor has not been incurred anterior to that of the first.] Gregory v. Hurrill, 4 Law J. K.B. 262, s. c. 5 B. & C. 341, s. c. 8 D. & R. 270.

Where a writ has been issued and continuances entered, the Statute of Limitations does not apply, so as to deprive the creditor of his right to issue a commission of bankruptcy against his debtor. Gregory v. Hurrill, 1 Law J. Č.P. 115, s. c. 1 Bing.

324.

Where, in an action by the assignee of a bankrupt, for goods sold by the latter to the defendant before the bankruptcy, it did not appear that a petitioning creditor's debt, amounting to £100, had been contracted within six years before the suing out of the commission, and the jury found a verdict for the assignee, the Court refused to disturb it. Mavor v. Pyne, 4 Law J. C.P. 36, s. c. 3 Bing. 285, s. c. 2 C. & P. 91.

The petitioning creditor's debt must have arisen whilst the trader was in business; but the circumstance of his discontinuing trade, does not prevent the issuing of a commission. Doe d. Barraud v. Lawrence, 2 C. & P. 134. [Abbott]

Where a petitioning creditor's debt arises on a note indorsed, or a bill accepted, by the bankrupt, evidence must be given that the indorsement or acceptance was prior to the act of bankruptcy: the mere production of the instrument, bearing an earlier date, is insufficient. Cowie v. Harris, 1 M. & M. 141. [Tenterden]

(D) of the COMMISSION.

(a) Striking the Docket.

The circumstance of the affidavit of debt, on striking the docket, having been sworn before the solicitor suing out the commission, is no ground of supersedeas. In re Elford, 2 G. & J. 65.

Where a commission issued on the petition of a solvent partner, who was one of the assignees of his bankrupt co-partner, in respect of a partnership

debt; it was held regular, though the other assig nees were not joined in the affidavit. Er parte Blakey, 1 G. & J. 197.

In order to make a sufficient petitioning creditor's debt, A and B had to join; and in making their affidavit, upon striking the docket, the amount of one of the debts was misstated: Held, that a supplemental affidavit might be made without new bonds; and that it was not essential that the bond and affidavit should bear the same date. Ex parte Maughan and Smith, 1 G. & J. 365.

After a valid act of bankruptcy, a commission may issue at the instance of the bankrupt. Shaw v. Williams, 1 R. & M. 19.

The first regular docket in the office has the priority. Ex parte Stocker and Collins, 1 G. & J. 249.

Held, that a docket was regularly struck after the V. C. had pronounced an order for the superseding of a commission against the same party, on the production of the necessary consents, but before the order was drawn up. Ex parte Bower, 1 G. & J. 262.

A docket struck with an act of bankruptcy, upon the belief by the creditor that an act of bankruptcy had been committed, will support a commission under a subsequent act. Ex parte Webster-Ex parte Stonehouse, 2 G. & J. 252.

A commission of bankrupt, sued out after the statute 6 Geo. 4. c. 16, came into operation, on an act of bankruptcy committed before the passing of that statute, cannot be supported. Maggs v. Hunt, 5 Law J. C.P. 130, s. c. 4 Bing. 212.

A statute authorizing a company to sue and be sued in the name of their secretary, does not empower the secretary to sue out a commission of bankruptcy as upon a debt due to himself. Guthrie v. Fiske, 3 Stark. 151. [Abbott]

(b) Opening the Commission.

The time for opening a commission will be enlarged, where the witness, who is to prove the act of bankruptcy, secretes himself in concert with the bankrupt. In re Hayes, 1 G. & J. 255.

(c) Declaring the Bankruptcy.

The advertisement of bankruptcy in the Gazette will be delayed upon an affidavit made by the creditors for that purpose. But it will not be delayed on the application of the bankrupt. Anon. 1 Law J. Chanc. 92.

In the absence of a defect on the face of the proceedings, the Court will not suspend the advertisement of the bankruptcy in the Gazette. Ex parte Ainsworth, 2 G. & J. 89.

(d) Errors.

A commission against L. H. M. of Finsbury Square, in the city of London, instead of the county of Middlesex, not a material misdescription. Ex parte Smith, 1 G. & J. 256.

A misnomer in the bankrupt's name, in a commission, may be amended before it has been proceeded in. Ex parte Harman, 2 G. & J. 25.

But a description in a commission consistent with the one in which the bankrupt carries on his trade, is sufficient, though it be not the legal description of residence. Ex parte Wride, 2 G. & J. 99.

Where a commissioner was misnamed in a com. mission, and after the bankruptcy declared, motion was made for leave to amend, the Court ordered the other commissioners to proceed to a new adjudication. In re Barber, 2 G. & J. 81.

A commission wholly omitting to describe the bankrupt of the place where he had chiefly been known as a trader, is bad, though the last place of trading be correctly described. Ex parte Parrey, 2 G. & J. 225.

The omission to describe the bankrupt, as of the place where he actually traded, is fatal. Ex parte Beadles, 2 G. & J. 243.

(e) Validity of, when and how to be disputed. As to what is a fraudulent commission, see Ex parte Gane, G. & J. $19.

The Court allowed a general demurrer to a bill for want of equity, by the assignees of a bankrupt, to restrain an action by him, to try the validity of the commission. Kirkpatrick v. Dennett, 1 S. & S.

408.

Where the parties to an alleged concert make affidavits to support the commission, which are not so satisfactory as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion, the Court will direct an issue to try the concert, and will direct the parties thereto to be examined at law. Ex parte Carter, 1 G. & J. 326.

An issue, directed upon the bankrupt's petition for a supersedeas, to try the validity of a commission of bankrupt, having been found against the bankrupt, and he having submitted to the verdict, and his petition having been dismissed, he will be restrained from afterwards bringing any action to question the validity of the commission. Anon. 1 Law J. Chanc. 23.

A person who has obtained his discharge out of custody, on the ground of bankruptcy, cannot afterwards dispute the validity of the commission in a court of law: the commission, if objectionable, must be superseded in equity. Watson v. Wace, 5

B. & C. 153, s. c. 7 D. & R. 633.

Where a party intends to dispute the validity of a commission, and brings an action against the person who caused it to be issued: Held, that he cannot require particulars of the act of bankruptcy, on which such commission is to be supported. Hughes v. Gilman, 3 Law J. C.P. 120.

No objection can be taken to the validity of a commission of bankrupt, unless the requisite notice be given, although the objection appears upon the proceedings, and requires no evidence to support it. Bevan v. Lewis, 1 Sim. 376.

Where the bankrupt acquiesces, the Lord Chan. cellor will, upon petition, restrain him from disputing his commission at law. Ex parte Leigh, in re Claughton, 2 G. & J. 332.

A petitioning creditor, on whose affidavit a commission issues, cannot afterwards dispute the validity of the commission. Ledbetter v. Scott, 6 Law J. C.P. 147, s. c. 4 Bing. 623. s. c. 1 M. & P. 597.

Where a commission of bankrupt is impeached by a creditor, and the debt which he claims is alleged to be usurious, it ought to be ascertained that the bankrupt is indebted to him, before the validity of the commission is inquired into at his instance. Er parte Hudson, 2 Russ. 456.

A reference to the commissioners to review the

79

proof of the trading, and of the petitioning creditor's debt, substituted for the trial of an issue as to the validity of the commission. Ex parte Hudson, 2 Russ. 456.

(f) Effect of a Commission.

The Statute of Limitations does not run against a debt after a commission of bankrupt has issued. Ex parte Ross, 2 G. & J. 46.

(g) Second Commission.

A second commission against a bankrupt who has not obtained his certificate under a previous subsisting commission, is void at law. Hill v. Wilson, 6 Law J. K.B. 127.

One set of commissioners not being able to proceed, from the death of one on their list, the Court permitted another commission to issue upon the same docket, directed to another list. Ex parte Stead, 1 G. & J. S01.

Under a second commission, the writ of supersedeas of the first, is sufficient proof of its having issued. Ledbetter v. Scott, 6 Law J. C.P. 147, s. c. 4 Bing. 623, s. c. 1 M. & P. 597.

After a bankrupt had not paid 15s. in the pound, under a second commission, he became a bankrupt again: Held, that the last commission was voidable, and not absolutely void. Todd v. Maxfield, 3 B. & C. 222, s. c. 5 D. & R. 258.

In an action to try the validity of a second commission of bankruptcy, the former having been superseded, as being founded on a concerted act of bankruptcy, the Court refused to order the bankrupt's books and papers to be produced to the assignees, under the second commission, on the ground that the application should have been made to the Lord Chancellor. Wilson v. Legge, 7 B. Mo. 400.

Although it may appear from the depositions, that a prior act of bankruptcy has been committed, the Court will not, in the absence of evidence, presume, that the petitioning creditor was cognizant of the fact. Thackrah v. Wood, 3 Stark, 141. [Abbott]

Quare-Whether the assignees under a second commission of bankrupt, (the first commission having been superseded) can, by petition, call the messenger under the first, to account for property possessed and disposed of by him under the first commission, without bringing the assignees under the first commission before the court? In re Howard & Gibbs, 1 Law J. Chanc. 31.

A commission directed to new commissioners, cannot issue after judgment by another list of commissioners against the bankruptcy. Ex parte Nicholls, in re Summersett, 2 G. & J. 266.

(h) Costs.

The commissioners have no right to decline to tax bills of costs, on the ground that the whole business of the commission is not concluded. Ex parte Gore, 2 G. & J. 117.

At the taxation of costs, before the commissioners, the parties have a right to attend. Ex parte Palmer, 2 G. & J. 34.

(E) OF THE Messenger.

Where a bankrupt has abandoned a petition for a supersedeas, and has joined in a conveyance of part of his property, and solicited and procured the re

is possessed of property, which has been superseded; him to account for the same to a a subsequent commission. Es

10, authorizing magistrates to search for the goods of a bankwuses of third persons, means, that ad de given to the messenger, and not 2004 và Na V. Nicerson, † C. & P. 464. [Best] Or 18 ProrIONAL ASSIGNEE

x and B & Co. respectively carried on N bankers at M. B'& Co. became banksad at the period of the act of bankruptcy, so banks beild notes and other securities of sad surter, bu nearly the same amount. The proviB & Co, knowing that fact, pre

gaber dời viðkained payment of the notes of A & Co. h of thver bank, and partly at their agent's

1. who did not know in what situation the com xood: Hold, that A & Co. might recover Aunt so received, against the provisional , an action for money had and received. 1 Aman, 1 B. & C. 418, & c. 2 D. & NAN.

I bore the commissioners execute a provisional ayment, the reasons for adopting that measure gai tu be stated on the proceedings. Ex parte A 46. & J. 237.

((7) Or the CoмMISSIONERS,

(a) Authority.

Commissioners of bankrupt are not authorized by the a tipo, de, 30, to enlarge the time for the disekaure of the bankrupt's estates and effects, beyond the limited period. Claughton v. Leigh, 1 Law J. A B 13, 0.1 H. & C. 652, ■. c. 2 D. & R. 831.

A bankrupt who has been apprehended under a judge's warrant, may be examined by the commisacomers, although the time for his surrender has expired, and if the answers given by him are satisAutory, he may be discharged, unless indicted; or they noty when necessary commit him for another Rxamination. Ex parte Ïlunt, 2 J. & W. 560.

The Court will not order a creditor, whose proof on admitted, and who refuses to produce to

The Great Seal cannot give the commissioners a power, which the law has not given them; but it will lend its assistance to enforce obedience to the authority given them by the statute, where they have not power to punish for disobedience. Er parte Woolley, 2 Law J. Chanc. 147, s. c. 1 G. & J. 395.

The allowance by the commissioners of the assignees' accounts can only be revised by the Court as to the principle upon which they have proceeded, and not as to the consideration of the quantum of the allowance. Ex parte Anthony, 2 G. & J. 55.

If the creditors consent to a supersedeas, and all the commissioners, except one, are dead, the surviving commissioner will be directed to certify to the Lord Chancellor the names of the creditors who have proved. Ex parte Wallis, 1 G. & J. 25.

Commissioners of bankrupt, under the statute 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. s. S3, may issue a warrant for the apprehension of a person who has failed to appear before them in obedience to a summons, although the fact of service of the summons has not been verified upon oath. But in such a case they take upon themselves the responsibility of shewing the fact, that the person was summoned.

The question as to the reasonableness of the notice given by summons to a person to attend the commissioners, is a question for a jury. Grocock v. Cooper, 1 Law J. K.B. 265, s. c. 8 B. & C. 211, s. c. 2 M. & R. 78.

(b) Duty.

It is the duty of the commissioners to proceed in the commissions as they come before them, without reference to any other commission against the same party. Ex parte Pryce, 2 G. & J. 161.

It is the duty of the commissioners, under whose direction a sale is to be held, to ascertain the expenses of the sale, as directed by the general order of March, 1794. Ex parte Mathew, 1 G. & J. 342.

(c) Liability.

An action of trespass does not lie against commissioners of bankrupt for committing a witness, who does not answer to their satisfaction, when examined by them concerning the estate and effects of a bankrupt. Doswell v. Impey, 1 Law J. K.B. 99, s. c. 1 B. & C. 163, s. c. 2 D. & R. 350.

(d) Examination before.