be a continuation of it with a view to gain a profit on the exchange, is a trafficking in exchange and trading. Richardson v. Bradshaw, 1 Atk. 128. See Hankey v. Jones, Cowp. 745, Eden, 4. Where the business of brickmaking is carried on as a mode of enjoying the profits of a real estate, it will not make the party liable to the bankrupt law; and there is no difference whether the party is a termor, or entitled to the freehold; but where it is carried on substantially and independently as a trade, it will do so. Eden, 4, citing Sutton v. Wheeley, 1 East, 442, ex-parte Gullimore, 2 Rose, 424, ex-parte Harrison, 1 Br. C. C. 173, Parker v. Wills, ib. (n). And in a late case it was ruled, that the owner of land who makes bricks from the clay of it, and buys chalk for the more convenient burning of the bricks, is not a trader. Paul v. Dowling, 1 M. and M. 263, Hearne v. Rogers, 9 B. and C. 577. See also Ex-parte Burgess, 2 Gl. and J. 183. Whether a trader who has ceased to buy, but is selling off his stock, is liable to a commission, depends upon the circumstance whether there be an intention to exercise or resume the trading, which is a question for a jury. Ex parte Paterson, 1 Rose, 402, Eden, 5. If a man has carried on a manufactory, his ceasing actually to work it does not for that reason make him cease to be an object of the bankrupt laws; if he continues to solicit orders, and holds himself out to the world as capable of executing orders in the course of his trade, he continues liable to be made a bankrupt. Per Ld. Ellenborough, Wharam v. Routledge, 5 Esp. 236. And where a person was proved to have been a trader by buying and selling fish during one season, Lord Ellenborough said that it must be presumed he still carried on his business in the usual way, and continued a trader down to the time of his bankruptcy. Heanny v. Birch, 3 Campb. 233, and see Pont v. Dowling, 1 M. and M. 268. Where business had been carried on by the party, in partnership with another, which partnership had been dissolved some years before, and no act of trading had been done for two or three years before the time when the petitioning creditor's debt accrued, but the concerns had not been ultimately wound up, and part of the stock still remained in the warehouse of the parties undisposed of, the jury found, under the direction of the court, that the trading continued. Executors of Backhouse v. Tarleton, coram Ld. Ellenborough, 2 Stark. Ev. 143. An executor disposing of his testator's stock is not a trader, though he purchase other articles to make it marketable; but if he increase the stock, and continue to sell, he becomes a trader. Ex parte Nutt, 1 Atk. 102, ex parte Garland, 10 Ves. 120, Eden, 5. An illegal trading will support a commission. Cobb v. Symonds, 5 B. and A. 516, but see Millikin v. Brandon, 1 C. and P. 381. Buying and selling land, or interest in land, is not a trading. Port v. Turton, 2 Wils. 169.

any

Under the general statement in the commission that the bankrupt got his living by buying and selling, any species of trading may be given in evidence. Hale v. Small, 2 B. and B.

25.

Evidence of trading what persons are within the particular words of 6 G. IV. c. 16, s. 6.) A pawnbroker is a broker within the statute. Rawlinson v. Pearson, 5 B. and A. 124. So a shipbroker, Pott v. Turner, 6 Bingh. 702. Whether an insurance broker be within the same term has not been determined. Ex parte Stevens, 4 Madd. 256. See Pott v. Turner, 6 Bingh. 708. It seems probable that whenever it becomes necessary to determine the point, it will be resolved in the affirmative. Eden, 7. In order to make a man a money scrivener, it must be an occupation to which he resorts in order to gain his living. In the course of this occupation he must receive other men's monies into his trust or custody. He must carry on the business of being trusted with other people's monies, to lay out for them as occasion offers. Per Gibbs, C. J., Adams v. Malkin, 3 Campb. 534.

Evidence of act of bankruptcy.] By 6 G. IV. c. 16, s. 3, it is enacted, that if any such trader (vide supra) shall depart this realm, or being out of this realm shall remain abroad, or depart from his dwelling-house, or otherwise absent himself, or begin to keep his house, or suffer himself to be arrested for any debt not due, or yield himself to prison, or suffer himself to be outlawed, or procure himself to be arrested, or his goods, money, or chattels, to be attached, sequestrated, or taken in execution, or make, or cause to be made, either within this realm or elsewhere, any fraudulent grant or conveyance of any of his lands, tenements, goods, or chattels, or make, or cause to be made, any fraudulent surrender of any of his copyhold lands or tenements, or make, or cause to be made, any fraudulent gift, delivery, or transfer of any of his goods or chattels, every such trader doing, suffering, procuring, executing, permitting, making, or causing to be made, any of the acts, deeds, or matters aforesaid. with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, shall be deemed to have thereby committed an act of bankruptcy.

And by section 4 it is enacted, that where any such trader shall, after this act shall have come into effect, execute any conveyance or assignment by deed, to a trustee or trustees, of all his estate and effects, for the benefit of all the creditors of such trader, the execution of such deed shall not be deemed an act of bankruptcy, unless a commission issue against such trader within six calendar months from the execution thereof by such trader, provided that such deed shall be executed by every such trustee within fifteen days after the execution

thereof by the said trader; and that the execution by such trader, and by every such trustee, be attested by an attorney or solicitor, and that notice be given within two months after the execution thereof by such trader, in case such trader reside in London, or within forty miles thereof, in the London Gazette, and also in two London daily newspapers and in case such trader does not reside within forty miles of London, then in the London Gazette, and also in one London daily newspaper, and one provincial newspaper, published near to such trader's residence; and such notice shall contain the date and execution of such deed, and the name and place of abode respectively of every such trustee, and of such attorney or solicitor.

And by section 5 it is enacted, that if any such trader having been arrested or committed to prison for debt, or on any attachment for non-payment of money, shall upon such, or any other arrest or commitment for debt, or non-payment of money, or upon any detention for debt, lie in prison for twenty-one days, or having been arrested or committed to prison for any other cause, shall lie in prison for twenty-one days after any detainer for debt lodged against him and not discharged, every such trader shall be deemed to have thereby committed an act of bankruptcy; or if any such trader having been arrested, committed, or detained for debt, shall escape out of prison or custody, every such trader shall be deemed to have thereby committed an act of bankruptcy from the time of such arrest, commitment, or detention; provided that if any such trader shall be in prison at the time of the commencement of this act, such trader shall not be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy by lying in prison, until he shall have lain in prison for the period of two months.

And by section 6 it is enacted, that if any such trader shall file in the office of the Lord Chancellor's secretary of bankrupts a declaration in writing signed by such trader, and attested by an attorney or solicitor, that he is insolvent or unable to meet his engagements, the said secretary of bankrupts, or his deputy, shall sign a memorandum that such declaration hath been filed, which memorandum shall be authority for the printer of the London Gazette, to insert an advertisement of such declaration therein; and every such declaration shall, after such advertisement inserted as aforesaid, be an act of bankruptcy committed by such trader at the time, when such declaration was filed, but no commission shall issue thereupon, tunless it be sued out within two calendar months next after the insertion of such advertisement, and unless such advertisement shall have been inserted in the London Gazette within eight days after such declaration was filed. By the same section, the gazette containing such advertisement shall be evidence to be received of such declaration having been

filed. And by section 7, the declaration having been concerted between the bankrupt and any creditor, or other person, shall not invalidate the commission.

By section 8, a trader, after a docket struck against him, compounding with the person who struck the same, whereby such person may receive more in the pound than the other creditors, is guilty of an act of bankruptcy. By section 9, traders having privilege of parliament, committing any of the aforesaid acts of bankruptcy, may be proceeded against as other traders, though not subject to arrest or imprisonment. By section 10, a trader having privilege of parliament, not paying or compounding to the satisfaction of his creditor, and also entering an appearance to the action within one month, is guilty of an act of bankruptcy. And by section 11, á trader having privilege of parliament, disobeying the order of any court of equity, or in bankruptcy, or lunacy, for payment of money, after service, and peremptory day fixed, is guilty of an act of bankruptcy.

The most important decisions with regard to the acts of bankruptcy above enumerated will now be noticed.

Evidence of act of bankruptcy-departing the realm.] It must be shown that the trader departed the realm with intent to delay his creditors, and therefore, though the creditors be in fact delayed, yet if the intent is wanting, there is no act of bankruptcy. Warner v. Barber, Holt, 175, Windham v. Paterson, 1 Stark. 145. But where the departing the realm must necessarily cause a delay, it will be an act of bankruptcy, for a person may be supposed to foresee and to intend what is the necessary consequence of his own acts. Ramsbottom v. Lewis, 1 Cumph. 280. Therefore where a trader went abroad in consequence of having killed his wife, it was held an act of bankruptcy. Woodier's case, B. N. P. 39; and see Raikes v. Poreau, Vernon v. Hankey, Co. B. L. 111. Where a trader departed the realm, leaving a letter behind him, and on the following day wrote another letter from Calais, it was held that both letters were admissible to show with what intention he departed; and per Best, C. J. the declarations in order to be admissible, must be made, or the letters written at the time of the act in question; but it is sufficient if they are written at any time during the continuance of the act; the departing the realm is a continuing act, and these letters were written during its continuance. Rawson v. Haigh, 2 Bingh. 99, see Maylin v. Euloe, 2 Str. 809. Going to Ireland is a departing the realm. Williams v. Nunn, 1 Taunt. 270.

Evidence of act of bankruptcy-departing from his dwellinghouse.] Notwithstanding a decision to the contrary, Barnard v. Vaughan, 8 T. R. 149, it is now settled that actual delay

need not be proved, an intent to delay being sufficient. Wilson V. Norman, 1 Esp. 334, Hammond v. Hicks, 5 Esp. 139, Holroyd v. Whitehead, 3 Campb. 530, Eden, 18, Robertson v. Liddell, 9 East, 487. Even where a trader departed under a mistaken idea that an officer who called had a writ for him, it was held an act of bankruptcy. Ex parte Bamford, 15 Ves. 449. Where the act of departing is equivocal, it is a question for the jury whether it was with intent to delay creditors, as where two partners left their shop, stating their purpose to be to get some bills discounted, aud telling their shopman if any creditor called, to make an excuse, in which case the jury found the intent, no evidence being given of an attempt to discount the bills. Deffle v. Desunges, 8 Taunt. 671, and see Aldridge v. Ireland, cited 1 Taunt. 273. A trader who has no settled house, or counting house, but takes up a temporary abode at a public-house in the place to which his business carries him, commits an act of bankruptcy by departing from such publichouse with intent to delay his creditors. Holroyd v. Gwynne,

2 Taunt. 176.

In order to prove the intent with which the bankrupt departed from his dwelling-house, evidence of what he said is admissible as part of the res gesta. Ambrose v. Clendon, Ca. temp. Hardw. 267. But it must be shown that the declaration was made at the time of the act, or at all events so near it as to form part of one and the same transaction. Thus a deposition stating that the bankrupt had admitted that he had absented himself for the purpose of avoiding his creditors, but not stating the time of the admission, was held to be no evidence of an act of bankruptcy. Marsh v. Meager, 1 Stark. 353. So it was held by Lord Ellenborough, that conversations taking place subsequently to the commission of the act constituting the act of bankruptcy, were inadmissible. Robson v. Kemp, 4 Esp. 234. In one case it was held that the declarations of the bankrupt after his return home, as to the reason of his absence, ought to have been admitted; Bateman v. Bailey, 5 T. R. 512, and see Maylin v. Eyloe, 2 Str. 809, Rawson v. Haigh, 2 Bingh. 99, ante, p. 424; but the correctness of this decision has been doubted. See 2 Evans's Pothier, 285, Eden, 360, 2 Phil. Ev. 339, Smallcombe v. Bridges, M'Clel. 45. Such evidence was however admitted by Parke, J. in Newman v. Stretch, 1 M. and M. 338. The declaration of the bankrupt that he departed to avoid a writ is evidence of an act of bankruptcy without proof of the writ, the debt or the existence of creditors. Id.

Evidence of act of bankruptcy-otherwise absent himself.] It has been held sufficient evidence of the trader absenting himself to show, that after being arrested he fled from the officer into the house of another person where the door was fastened,