again quit it, to avoid being arrested by a creditor, it is a departing this realm within the meaning of the statute (7). The departure must be with intent to defeat or delay his creditors in the recovery of their debts (vide post, p. 58). The departure of a man in embarrassed circumstances is strong, but not conclusive, evidence of the intention (m). 2. Or, being out of this realm, shall remain abroad.] This, it seems, was not an act of bankruptcy previously to 6 Geo. 4, c. 16 (n). And now, if a trader go abroad leaving a general power of attorney to a person to act for him, but makes no provision for payment of bills which become due in his absence, he commits an act of bankruptcy; as the inevitable consequence of his absence is delay of his creditors (0); also, when a trader departs the realm, from a proper motive, but, upon discovery of his embarrassments, remains abroad, with intent to delay his creditors, it is an act of bankruptcy. But the remaining abroad must be with intent to defeat or delay the trader's creditors in the recovery of their debts. (See post, p. 58). 3. Or depart from his Dwelling-house.] This is one of the acts of bankruptcy in stats. 13 El. c. 7, s. 1, and 1 Jac. 1, c. 15, s. 2, and described in the same words. A trader shutting up his shop for two days without making any provision for payment of creditors, who might apply for their debts, commits an act of bankruptcy (p). Departing from the party's place of business, although he have a dwelling-house eleswhere, is, it seems, an act of bankruptcy within this clause of the statute (q); or, at all events, within the next clause of it, namely, otherwise absenting himself, and although no creditor actually calls during the absence (r). And it has been holden that if a trader, who has no settled home or counting-house, take up a temporary abode at a public-house in the place where his business carries him, he commits an act of bankruptcy by departing from such public-house, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors (s). If a trader depart his house with intention to delay his creditors, though upon a groundless apprehension, it is an act of bankruptcy (t). The departure must be voluntary (u), and not compulsory, as in the case of an arrest (x). And where a bankrupt, being called on by appointment, left the room, and his wife told the creditor he was gone out, it was held to be an act of bankruptcy (y). The length of the trader's absence is immaterial, as the act of bankruptcy is complete the moment the trader leaves his house (z). (1) Williams v. Nunn, 1 Taunt. 270; 1 Camp. 152: Holroyd v. Gwynne, 2 Taunt. 176. (m) Er p. Osborne, 2 V. & B. 177; 1 Rosc. 387. (n) 1 Mont. B. L. 23: but see Windham v. Paterson, 1 Stark. 147; 4 Camp. 289. (0) Er p. Kilner, 2 Dea. 326; 3 Mon. & A. 722. (p) Er p. Austen, 2 Dea. 533. 234: Spencer v. Billing, 1 Camp. 310. 53. (y) Charrington v. Browne, 11 Moore, 341. (z) Holroyd v. Gwynne, 2 Taunt. 176: Spencer v. Billing, 3 Camp, 312: May (q) Judine v. Da Cossen, 1 New Rep. in v. Eyloe, 2 Str. 809. D The departure must be with intent to defeat or delay creditors in the recovery of their debts (a). 4. Or otherwise absent himself.] This also is the same as in stats. 13 El. c. 7, s. 1; 1 Jac. 1, c. 15, s. 2. Where a trader, being arrested, escaped from the officer into a neighbour's house, and when the officer inquired for him there, he was denied, and the door fastened against him; and whilst there, the trader declared that he remained there not so much on account of the officer, for that debt was really paid, but for fear of other creditors; and when it became dark he went home: this was holden to be an absenting himself within the meaning of the statute, and an act of bankruptcy (b). So, a trader secretly withdrawing himself, after being arrested, absents himself within the meaning of the statute (c). And where a trader went into a neighbour's shop, and said he expected momentarily to be arrested; and whilst there he was told that the sheriff's officer was going towards his house, upon which he went immediately into the back shop, and concealed himself until he was told that the officer was gone away, when he answered, "Thank God! I will now go in ;" and he went home accordingly this was holden to be an absenting himself within the meaning of the statute, and an act of bankruptcy (d). So, where creditors called on a trader, and he admitted, and spoke to them, and, pretending to go out for money to pay them, left his house, and did not return until he knew they were gone; this was holden to be absenting himself within the statute, and an act of bankruptcy (e). See also the cases under the last head. And if a trader, who has no settled dwelling, thus absent himself from his usual place of abode, it will be an act of bankruptcy (ƒ). Thus, where a vendor of a newspaper, in the habit of attending the Royal Exchange to collect news, retired from 'Change upon the approach of a creditor, and desired a friend to tell him he was not there; this was holden to be an absenting himself within the statute, and an act of bankruptcy (g). A trader absenting himself from any place with intent to delay a creditor, is an act of bankruptcy (h). So a trader's absenting himself from his counting-house, and desiring his clerk to say he had been there, when in fact he was absent, is an act of bankruptcy (i). And, generally, if a trader makes an appointment to meet his creditors at any specified place, not the residence of the creditor, and breaks the appointment with a view to delay his creditor, it is an act of bankruptcy; but, semble, not if the appointment is to meet at the creditor's residence (k). So also, if, from dread of an arrest, he (a) Fowler v. Padget, 7 T. R. 509: and see post, p. 58. (b) Bayley v. Schofield, 1 M. & S. 338. (h) Hallan v. Homer, 1 Car. & P. 108: Curteis v. Willes, 1 Car. & P. 211. (i) Shannon v. Owen, 1 Man. & R. 392, n.; and see Gimmingham v. Laing, 6 Taunt. 534. (k) Lees v. Marton, 1 Mood. & R. 210. abstains from going to a place where, but for such dread, he would have gone (1); but merely appointing to meet one of his creditors at a given place, and failing to do so, is not (m). The absenting must be voluntary, and not by means of an arrest (n); the duration of it seems to be immaterial (see ante, p. 49). But it must be with intent to defeat or delay the creditors in the recovery of their debts. (See post, p. 58). 5. Or begin to keep his house.] This is also one of the acts of bankruptcy created by stats. 13 El. c. 7, s. 1, and 1 Jac. 1, c. 15, s. 2, and described in the same manner. A trader withdrawing from a part of the house where he usually sat, and where he was free of access, to a more retired part, to avoid personal applications for money, is a beginning to keep house within this clause of the statute (o). So not going to his counting-house, nor to the town near which he lived; sending for his papers to his house; not going out, &c., and the like, are circumstances from which a beginning to keep house may be inferred (p). Or if a man, not having a house of his own, keep within the house of another, or in chambers, or on board ship; or if a miller keep within his mill, or the like; this is an act of bankruptcy within this clause of the statute (g). A country trader was in the habit of coming occasionally to London, and staying a day or two at a friend's house, where he wrote his letters, and was in the habit of ordering goods to be sent to him there: in the same street lived one of his creditors, and on a particular day he desired his friend not to inform the creditor that he was in town, as he would be teasing him for his money. Shortly after, the creditor called at the house upon business, and the bankrupt went into a back warehouse for ten minutes to avoid seeing him; this was holden to be a beginning to keep house, and an act of bankruptcy (r). So also a country dealer, being at a house of a friend in London, where he was accustomed to visit, and concealing himself to avoid a creditor, commits an act of bankruptcy (s). And where the trader was in the rules of the King's Bench, but had come to his own house, out of the rules, and was there denied to a clerk of the creditor, it was held to be an act of bankruptcy (†). So also was a denial to a creditor calling for his debt at the bankrupt's lodging, not his usual place of business; for a creditor has a right to call on his debtor where he pleases (u). But a denial to a creditor on a Sunday, is not an act of bankruptcy, although the creditor calls by appointment with the bankrupt, for payment of his debt (x). (1) Robson v. Rolls, 9 Bing. 668; 2 M. & Scott, 786. (m) Tucker v. Jones, 2 Bing. 2: Er p. Lavender, 4 Dea. & C. 484. (n) Phillips v. Peake, Green, 52; and see 3 Camp. 530, n. (0) Dudley v. Vaughan, 1 Camp. 271: Key v. Shaw, 8 Bing. 320; 1 M. & Scott, 462. (P) See 16 Ves. 149. 64. And a denial to a collector (q) Stone, 9, 123. (2) Curtis v. Willis, 4 D. & R. 224. (t) Hughes v. Gilman, 2 Car. & P. 32; 10 Moore, 480. (u) Park v. Prosser, 1 Car. & P. 176. (x) Ex p. Preston, 2 V. & B. 311; 2 Rose, 21. of King's taxes is as much an act of bankruptcy as a denial to any other creditor (y). The closing the doors and shutters of a bank is a beginning to keep house, though it is not the domicile of the bankers (z). If a trader order that he shall be denied to a particular creditor, or to all creditors generally, or to every person who may call, this is evidence sufficient to raise a presumption of his beginning to keep house, within the meaning of this clause of the statute, and the usual evidence given of it (a). And a denial in pursuance of such order is not now holden necessary to constitute the act of bankruptcy (6), although formerly holden otherwise (c); though it seems there must be some corroborating fact, as the shutting up shop or retreating to a distant part of the house (d). A denial to a creditor calling not for the payment of his debt is an act of bankruptcy, if made under a conception that the object was to demand payment (e). And where the person desired that the trader might be told he called in consequence of a certain bill of exchange (mentioning the parties) being dishonoured, and was denied, the trader believing him to be a creditor, it was held to be an act of bankruptcy (f). The trader's being actually denied to a creditor, if not in pursuance of an order previously given by him, is no evidence of a keeping house within this clause of the statute, although the trader subsequently approve of it (g); but it has been recently held that if a trader, without having given any previous directions, hears the denial to a creditor and does not come forward, it is an act of bankruptcy, if done with intent to delay creditors, but not if done with a legitimate excuse, as being engaged in important business (h). The period during which the trader keeps house is immaterial, whether an hour or a day (i). It must appear, however, to have been done with intent to defeat or delay the creditors in the recovery of their debts. (See post, p. 58). 6. Or suffer himself to be arrested for any debt not due.] This needs no explanation. It is the same, and described in the same terms, as one of the acts of bankruptcy created by stat. 13 El. c. 7, (y) Sanderson v. Laforest, 1 Car. & P. 46, 336. (z) Cumming v. Bailey, 4 M. & P. 36; 6 Bing. 363: but see Ex p. Mavor, 19 Ves. 543. (a) Mucklow v. May, 1 Taunt. 479: Bayly v. Schofield, 1 M. & S. 338: Lloyd v. Heathcote, 2 B. & B. 388: Lazarus v. Waithman, 5 Moore, 313: Per Lord Mansfield in Round v. Byde, Cooke, 110: and see Er p. Bamford, 16 Ves. 452: Harvey v. Ramsbottom, 2 D. & R. 145; 1 B. & C. 55: Deffle v- Desanges, 8 Taunt. 671. (b) Harvey v. Ramsbottom, 2 D. & R. 142; 1 B. & C. 55: Lloyd v. Heathcote 2 B. & B. 338. (c) Garrett v. Moule, 5 T. R. 575: Hawkes v. Saunders, Cooke, 90: Jeffs (d) Hare v. Waring, 3 M. & W. 362. (e) Er p. White, 3 V. & B. 128, S. C: Exp. Harris, 2 Rose, 67. (f) Bleasby v. Crossley, 2 Car. & P. 213; 11 Moore, 327. (g) Er p. Foster, 1 Rose, 50: 17 Ves. 416 and see Dudley v. Vaughan, 1 Camp. 271. (h) Smith v. Moon, Mood. & M. 458. (i) See Palm, 325. s. 1, and re-enacted by stat. 1 J. 1, c. 15, s. 2. It must be done with intent to defeat or delay the creditors in the recovery of their debts. (See post, p. 58). 7. Or yield himself to Prison.] This is also the same, and described in the same terms, as one of the acts of bankruptcy created by stat. 13 El. c. 7, s. 1, and re-enacted by stat. 1 Jac. 1, c. 15, s. 2. Where a trader was arrested for 281., and he chose rather to go to prison than pay the debt, (although at the time he had money sufficient to pay it), in order, as he said, to compel his creditors to come to a composition; this was holden to be an act of bankruptcy within this clause of the statute (k). It must be done with intent to defeat or delay the creditors in the recovery of their debts. (See post, p. 58). 8. Or suffer himself to be outlawed.] The outlawry must be in England or Wales; and an outlawry in a county palatine will be sufficient (1). But it must be an outlawry suffered with intent to defeat or delay the creditors in the recovery of their debts. (See post, p. 58). 9. Or procure himself to be arrested, or his goods, monies, or chattels to be attached, sequestered, or taken in execution.] There was a similar clause in stat. 1 J. 1, c. 15, s. 2; but there the words, "or taken in execution," were omitted; and therefore it was holden that a fraudulent judgment, and execution thereupon, were not within the meaning of that act (m). For which reason, the words, "or taken in execution," have been introduced in the present statute. The word "attached," means that species of attachment by which suits are commenced, such as the foreign attachment by the custom of London or Bristol, and the like (n). The arrest, attachment, sequestration, or execution must appear to have been procured by the bankrupt, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors in the recovery of their debts. (See post, p. 58). 66 10. Or make, or cause to be made, either within the realm or elsewhere, any fraudulent grant or conveyance of any of his lands, tenements, goods, or chattels.] The words of a similar clause in stat. 1 J. 1, c. 15, s. 2, were, or make or cause to be made any fraudulent conveyance of his, her, or their lands, tenements, goods, or chattels." The words, "either within this realm, or elsewhere," were introduced in the present statute, because it was decided that the above clause in stat. 1 J. 1, c. 15, s. 2, did not extend to conveyances executed out of England (0). In the statute of James, as in this act, the words are, "any fraudulent conveyance;" and under this head were classed all the |