Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/764

virtue of a demise theretofore made, (which demise was set out verbatim in the special verdict,) whereby it appeared in substance, that by indenture made the 24th of June 1780, between the said Archbishop of the one part, and the said John Dewye Parker of the other part, the said Archbishop for and in consideration (amongst other things) of a surrender of a lease or term of twenty-one years, made to John Parker of Waddon, in the county of Surry, deceased, of the parcels again intended to be demised, bearing date the 24th of June 1767, demised the said premises to the said John Dewye Parker, to hold unto him, his executors, administrators, and assigns, from the making of the same for the term of twenty-one years, at the yearly rent of £22 6s. 8d.—The special verdict further stated, That the said John Parker, mentioned in the said indenture, the father of the said John Dewye Parker, for twenty years and more, before the year 1768, and long afterwards, held the said farm, with the appurtenances, under and by virtue of similar demises made to him from the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, for the time being; and that one William Beraud, for twenty years and more before the year 1768, had rented a certain brick-ground, parcel of the said farm of the said John Parker, the father, the former tenant of the said farm, and made and sold bricks there. That the said William Beraud died in the year last aforesaid, and upon his death the said John Dewye, Parker (who was then, and had been for a considerable time before, in the joint occupation of the said farm [546] with the said John Parker, his father, and living with his said father) took the said brick-ground into his own possession, and then and there bought certain materials and necessary things, which were by the said William Beraud in his life-time used in making bricks there at the valuation of £139, and then and there made bricks and tiles of the earth there, and sold them; and that during the time the said John Dewye Parker so held the said land, he made bricks and tiles for sale, of the earth or clay arising from part of the said land so used as a brick-ground at the time of the demise, and bought sand and fuel which were necessary ingredients for converting the earth or clay into bricks and tiles; and that during the time the said John Dewye Parker so made and sold bricks and tiles, he was erecting buildings and making repairs on the said farm on which a part of the said bricks and tiles so made were expended. That the said John Dewye Parker continued to sell bricks and tiles so made by him until the time of his absconding; and that in the month of October 1780, he became and was indebted to one James Collis in £800 and upwards, and continued so indebted from thence until at the time of the issuing out of the commission of bankrupt after-mentioned, and being so indebted the said John Dewye Parker afterwards, and before the issuing the commission after-mentioned, to wit, on the 17th day of January 1783, absconded from his dwelling-house in order to avoid his creditors, and with intent to delay them in the payment of their debts.—That afterwards, on the 6th March 1783, a commission duly issued out of the High Court of Chancery, etc. That thereupon the said John Dewye Parker was in due form declared a bankrupt. That the goods mentioned in the declaration were in due form assigned, etc. and that the defendant in error being messenger under the commission, took the said goods, etc. by order of the assignees under the said commission. And the jury submitted to the opinion of the court, Whether upon the whole matter the said John Dewye Parker was liable to become a bankrupt under the statutes made concerning bankrupts, by reason of the premises aforesaid?

In Easter term 1784, this special verdict was argued in the Court of Common Pleas; and that Court being of opinion, that the said John Dewye Parker was not liable to become a bankrupt under the statutes made and in force concerning bankrupts, by reason of the premises aforesaid, gave judgment in his favour.

Upon this judgment the defendant in the same term brought his writ of error in the Court of King's Bench; and in Trinity and Michaelmas terms 1785, the cause was argued in that Court, and in the last-mentioned term, that Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiff thereupon brought his writ of error in Parliament, and on his behalf it was argued, (T. Erskine, A. Piggott, A. Palmer) that the general provisions of the bankrupt laws (and it was not pretended that any particular ones were applicable to the present case) extend only to persons "using the trade of mer-