The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1818-11-14 00:00:00

. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Kinsman', FIUDAT, NOTANSUA 13. V. LC& Mr. HART requested that his Lordship wonlil al. low Imo to mention this case. It was referred to Master Cox to tuquire and report who ought to bare the care and management of the infants; sod the Mater reported, that they ought to he intrust. rd to the protection of their grandmother, L•idy CUICh I O O k, 81111 that r-pnrt was confirmed by his Lordship's order of the 15th of August last, shortly after which Lady Colebrook deported this life. An application was then made to his Lordship to send the report back to the Master, for him to again consider who might to have the custody of the in fants. Mosier Cox at that time happened to be out of town, and his Lordship sent it to Master Courtesiay, bait he had not made any report. What he (the Learned Counsel) had to ask of his Lordship was, that he would now a id it to the for. u ser Master, to iogoi►e and report who were the proper p►rsons to have the custody of the infant, and that his Lordship's Registrar might he directed to draw up the order of the 15th of August. The LORD CHANCRLLOR—" It can he of no use to have the order of the lath of August drown up now, for we are to suppose that Master Con would not have reported as he did if Lady Cole brook was not olive." Mr. HART—" Then let it be referred to Muter Cos generally to inquire anti report who is or are the proper person or persons". have the custody of the infant•, and also to inquire and report whether Mrs. Tootle, the mother of the infants, should be allowed to see her daughters alone or otherwise." The Lotto CHANCILLOR—" Let it be so." Motion granted. COURT OF RINCFS BENCH. Wellemserrett, • FRIDAY, Novelties 13. t AMMO mid cO. O. coßitit sad co. This was a case reserved for special argument. The circumstances were these:—Messrs. Baring intrusted to persons of the name of Coles, who acted. it stems, both as ltrolstri and wereheutts. a quantity of sugar, to sell on their account. On the 27th of June, 1838. they sold the sugar to the present Defendants, and delivered to the Plain tiffs what is technically termed • told note. 00 the same dry they delivered another note to Messrs. Currie and Co. acknowledging the sale to them, but not naming their principals. On the 3d of July. the Plaintiffs received a delivery note, signed by a person of the name of %Volker, for Baring and Co. On the 11th of July. an invoice was de livered by Coles and Co. to the Plaintiff.. which was headed. " Bought of Coles, brothers." They got possession of the sugar—and, Coles becoming embarrassed, application was made to the Davi• dants to pay for the property. They refused, al leging, that they had not purchased from Cola and Co. as bro ker, but as aterchaarr--and that they had a get-offer certain bills of exchange. pay able by Cola and Co. in liquidation of *lnch they had taken the sugar; not knowing that the Plain tiffs were the real owners. _ _ Mr. Sca%tare *bill day brguetl, that that party, who had placed such confidence in soother, as enah!ed him to impose on a third person, ought to suffer. lit this case, he conceived Meters. Baring had repoied an improper confidences in Coles uud Co. end it wbuld be unjust that the party who hail been deceived by means of that coofidence, should be the loser. In support of this position (which he laboured to apply to the facts), he cited several seises—and quoted largely from the " Traetatms de Prot-metes aiqtre Pfrozeorteeis" of Stoweha. Mr. PULLEO was heard cooled. He denied that his Learned Friend's position was a just one—and argued, that. even if it were, it did not apply to this case. Messes. Baring had not reposed an im. proper confidence in Coles and Co.—but, on the other hand, the Defendants certainly had. They ought to brie looked into the state of Messre. Cole's ntfatrs, as they were not ignorant of certain iadicia that made such an inquiry necessary. The CHIEF JUSTICE said, if the Defendants could succeed in this case, the effect would be, that the goods of one person might be applied to discharge the debts of another. This was a torsi. tion the Court would not lend itself to sustain, un less strong reasons, or strong authorities, were ad. tensed in support of it. It appeared to his Lord ship that neither the one nor the other had been laid clown on this occasion. The plea of the De fendants was, that where u loss must fall on one of two innocent iiersons, it unght to devolve on him who gave the confidence, by which that Jan was occasioned. This principle was, however, by no means one of univ ers al application. Thor, if a factor, intrusted 'with goods, pledged them, al. though the iwrson receiving the goods. believed them to belong to the person pledgmg, the real owner might still recover them. If a master em ployed a servant to take a piece of plate to a silver smith, or a ;ferment to be mended, and the servant sold it. not in market wort, but privately, the master nosy recover against the buyer. And yet, it was lw who gave the confidence, by intriosting his servant. The principle, therefore, was not ge neral. Then came the que s tion, had there been, in this case, greater negligence un one side than on the other? Or had there been any on the side of the Delesidanta, or of the Plaintiff* alone? The char.icter of Ales.n.. Coles were that of merchants moil lookers. This fact was known to both parties. Hut those who wished to deal with them as ?Her. (hunts, and not as brokers, ought to have takes, care to inform themselves how far they had • right to act in that C4parily. A broker sod a factor, however they might, for some purposes, be deemed the were characters different in many respecht—not in name ouly, hut in fact, as was very well known its the mercantile world. The factor is • person to whom ';nods are lent fur sale, by some one residing abroad, nyiving at a distance, who gives the agent leave to seal in his own name. The initiation of the broker is different. He is not lopsided with tile actual Pc , szestano of the goods, and he has no right i" sell in his own name. The person in buyesig e%pects tin! broker to sell its the mine of the person by %limo lie was employed. In all cases of factors, the pi.r son acting in that capacity the goods s o ld, that no was in absolute possession f person could know whether they belonged to him or nal—lint it was itisown that he had the authority to tell in his own name. This was the ordinary and usual course of business. What was the ernifirtesice the Plaintiff. renewed in Coles' and Co. ? It was no other thin • every man must place in r broker, if lie em ployed one, lithe Defendants were successful, no mail would hereafter employ a broker, because he could lint know in what way he would discharge his duty. lie Might. as Messrs. Coles did, in this isi • appriiie his employer that lie had ■old his goods, without stating in what capacity. It was .aid, that there were facts relating to other transactions, known to the Plaintiffs which 'Mewed that a greater confidence had been reposed in Messrs. Coles than ought to have been placed in a broker. It was stated, that , befure the time of selling the angers in qiiertiois the Defendant' had dealt with Messrs. Coles, in buying and selling. on their own account, and that the Pleiiitifi's had authorised Messrs. Coles. after the pale was completed, to receive the price of the goods. Nnw the fact, as here stated, miry amounted to this—that the Plaintiffs having em ployed Coles and Co. to sell those sugars. directed them to receive the price of the goods sold, as bro kers. This merely went to sheer, that the Dea fentlants were to pay to the agents of the Plaintiff , 6 and not to persons acting as principals. This particular trausaction added nothing to tie Defeo ca.e. Nuw, what ►night Messrs. Carrie have done ? and what did they 't to do ? They knew Colts and Co, were both brokers and merchants. II they meant to deal with them in the chancier of merchant, and meant to derive a benefit from their transactions in that character, they ought to have in quired what authority they had to act as merchants, in this transaction. They did no such thing. Coln and Co. had given them the 'tame of the ship, the Active, in which the goods were imported, which afforded them ample medals of inquiry, if they chose to make use of them—and, if the• did not, they were guilty of an omission, which they ought not to have left imattemled to. There was another cir cumstance in Olio case, wl►ich %hewed. that, at the least, if the Defendants did not know. they were deelnig with Coles and Co. as broker.. they cer tainly dill not choose to ask whether they were or not. They had received a sale-uote from toles and Co. but they had returned no document binding themselves to fulfil the contract. Now lie did out meals to may, that, every mercantile transaction. all those who delivered a writing. binding on one party, must demand a document equally binding on the oilier.—He meant merely to state, that such was the ordinary course of dealing in transactions of a mercantile nature. If, at the time of making this pnrchase. the Plaintiffs wished lA deal with Messrs. Coley, as merchant', they ought to have sacertained their right to set in that capacity.— nn the other bad, they did nut then contemplate a benefit to be derived from tratisseting business with them, as Merchants, but that it war an afterthought —it could give them no claim to have their situation altered. His opinion of the great distinction be tween the situation of factor cod broker—and the wide difference between the ease. cited at the bar And the present—(.id►nittitlg the principle, that when a loss must fall on one of two liniment persons. it must devolve on him who had given confidetice)— together with a view of the facts of the case itself— led him to this conclusion, that the Defendants must safer. _ NI,. Justice Bairt.EY concurred in this opiniOn. This was an action brought by Messrs. Baring and Co. to recover the price of their own goods—and certainly they ought to be paid, unless the Defeo dints had paid the amount to some one else, properly authorised, or that the demand could he properly awl legally resisted. The Defendants. who were the buyers, did nut purchase of the Plaintiffs, but of Messrs. Coles aiid Co : on whom they had a con siderable demand. on Which account they con ceived they were entitled to resist the chains of the real owners. The proprietor, it was said, was en tilled to receive the price of his property, unless, by imprudent conduct of his own, he has enabled some other person to appear as owner of the goods, and by means of that appearance, to impose on a third party, who sissy have hero guilty of want of caution sod prudence, in not endeavouring to guard against the &Celt. This would strictly apply to the rule laid down by Mr. Scurlett, that where • loss must fall on one of two innocent personi, it ought to be visited on him who had given that contideoce, which led to the fraud. The question wan, did Baring and Co. give Nles.rs. Coles, the means of practising a frond on the Defendants ?—did they practice a fromd if.they did, was prudence Manifested on the part of the Defendants to prevent that fraud ? In his opinion, every one or these points must he answered against Corrie and Co. The sold-note delivered by Meters. Coles to Baring and Co. and the no►e delivered to Collie and Co. were exactly suited to their character of brokers—although ism the latter they d►d lint name their principals. It was the duty of the Plaintiffs to suspect that they were selling in the character of brokers amid not of tuerchauts ; because, had they been selling us merchants. Coles •nd Co. would have expected, on their part, a contract-note, binding the par. chasers, which was not demanded. As it stood. Coles and Co. were bound by the in. strument delivered by them, but the pre sent Defendants were smut bound iii return. This raised a strong presumption that Come and Co. absolutely understood that Messrs. Colts were only acting a. brokers. Messrs. Coles did not say " These are our own goods," and the Defen dants did not think proper to ask the question. With respect to the delivery note signed by Walker fur Messrs. Baring, this situ►t have 'hewn the Defendants, that, at one time or other Messrs. Baring most have hail something to do with the property—nod if they had a doubt on the subject, they sh ook! have inquired. Mess... Baring had put nothing whatever in the !mods of Coles and C0....'1111 pryers. reo documents—that might ro uble them to impose oil the world. As to the invoice, headed .1 bought of Coles, brothers," it certainly might have the effect of inducing a belief that the purchsse was really from them. But he apprehended it was not au tiowonnuon soy for a broker to make out an invoice, when acting as broker, provided he did not wish to 'lase the name of his principal discovered. This, however, was after the sale ; and if Currie and Co. chose to receive the invoice as a rea son for believing that Coles and Co. sold the goods as their own, alter the previous trausactious iu the ease, they did ii.i use due confirm nr prudence, tint having inquired into those f inner procetiliogs, W ho, A rn o,' h ive l e d to elldp , t root iu their iii olio The broker was hound in rote it, his hook a osionte of each proceeding. which, if acting as a inerchastt. lie need tint do. • If, therefore. Come Hod Co. hoed asked to have that hook given to‘lieni, it wonlll at once have proved whether Coles and Co. actlol as brokers or :is merchants. This, however. not done. As the facts appeared to him, Baring mid Co. did not give Messrs. Coles the mems of im posing on the Defetidants—nritlor dal he believe they were imposed on—but, if they aeie, it ryas in contrquence of their Awn negligent-. .11 giving too much credit to Coles and Co. When Coles blood 01 the equivoral situation of broker and merchant, of the Defendants meant to boy the goods to cover their debt, he thought, as men of common honesty, they would inquired in what capacity the sellers acted. It *until tie most disholiest to purchase goods from Coles soil Co, As tSer chews. when. they were merely employed as brokers. and then to throw the principal front them to Messrs. Cotes, to seek for pigment. con ceived they bail not purchased. with • view to set oft the bills of which they were holders togaiiist the debt—mod, therefore, had no right subsequently to resist the demand by that llfleatla. It appeared to him that the law of the case went precisely with the judgineut of the case—and that Baring and Co. had • right to take into their pockets the price of their own goods. Mr. Justice noritoTis said, the 6efendants had no right whatever to make such Is set-iitl. • With re spect to the doctrine laid down by Mr. Scarlet, it w a s not generally applicable. • a mitt pledged the property of soother, intrusted to his care, the owner might recover from the pledger. IVhere goods were sold by a person, in whose care they were left. except in markeiAnvert, the 'noise wits liable. And, even when sold in mettket-overt, the property did soot go out of the ()Wrier, if he pro secuted the fraudulent party. lit all awes of this kind, the role was, rareut-emptur. Verdict fur the Plaintiffs roar:tied. COURT OF C9MINION PLEAS, Warnetstittit, Novatatio. 13. HART? e. OATES. In this rase a rule had been previously applied for and ri-4n.ed. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN now renewed the 'Nib cation, stating, in support of it, that he had the effidarit of a person to produce, who swore that a Juryman hail communicated matter to him, after the trial, sufficient to shew that the Jury had been guilty of misconduct in finding their verdict. The CHIEF JUSTICE replied, that it had been lately decided in that Court, that no matter coming from the Jury themselves, or a third person, if ultimately derived from that source, and appearing after the delive7 of the verdict, was of force to vet aside the verdict. The Court, therefore, continuid in its former opinion. Nothing else of any interest occurred the busi ness was disposed of, and the Court adjourned at eleven o'clock. COURT OF EXCHEQUF.R, Warman's', Fasosv, Novnursa 13. SIR WATKIN LIWES V. MORGAN. Mr. D•uricEY moved for a rule to empower the li,lenclaiit to take pro confess° . against the Plaintiff the facts to which the interrogatories of the former applied, and to send an affidavit of these facts to the Deputy Rementbrancer, in order that he might proceed to settle the accounts. grounded on the contempt of Court ahewn by the Plaintiff in delaying to answer to these interrogatories, though submitted to the Court so far back as Fe bruary, 1816. Mr. Jute's, on the other side, *hewed cause against the rule—he stated that the interrogatories applied to the whole facts of the case, relating back to the year 1796, when the action co►nmenced, aid• including the ►nterval from that to 18111, a period of Eld years; that the delay was no ind►cation of a con tenipt of the Court on the part of Bir W. Leon, but that. on the contrary, he had been most anxious to ►duke a reply, but had been unable to procure tl►e attendance of his own solicitors, or the assistance of others for the purpoie; and that he had an iArla vit made by a Deptlemon (we understood Sir John Pritchard), declining that he had repeatedly called on different Solicitors to ,request they would attend on Sir Watkin Lewes in the Fleet Prison, but with out ally effect ; Mr. Jervis therefore argued, that the contempt, if any appeared, was not his client's, but that of the Solicitoii, and especially his own in the suit, and moved, that S►r %Vat km Lewes should be allowed t►me to coasider of, and reply to, the in te►rogatortes. Mr. liaurrcre obierved, that all the facts were perfectly well known and !imbiber to the Plaintiff; they having been repeatedly brought before the Court in the prosecution of the suit. Mr. Baron GRAMANI said, that the motion was contrary to all his ideas of the practice of the Court, namely, that the Cuurt should take a statement of all the facts of the case from the Defemlant him self.; but he had a course to suggest which would avoid this inconvenience perhaps, and ■t the bsine . . - time shew Sir W. Lewes , that no individual, what. ever his situation might be, could defeat the orders of the Court, and resist or chide the strong arm of of the law—namely, that the Court should issue an order that the Plaintiff should put in an answer to the interrogatories by the first day of next Term— in default of which, the Defendant should forth with make an affidavit on the facts to which the in terrogatories applied, and be empowered to send it to the Deputy Rememhrancer, in order that the latter might proceed to an account. Mr. JER •111 I ieiired that the order might he made fur the last day of the inttungs after next Term. Mr: Baron GRAIIAN amid. that there was con. sitlerable prolixity in the interrogatories by 1I r. 51oi gall, and that it was not easy to examine and conwirr such a volume of matter hi a short apace or time. r. 13s►on GARRow paid, that the Sittings would he vrry We; snd, besolet., the looger time the Pl.tialtd was allowed to prepare his answer, the stronger would 1)0 the cm, of t h e Defendant, in csse the Plaintiff still neglected to do an. Thy order sutttre•ted by Mr. Baron Graham was accordingly made. Mr. JERVIS inquired, whether the attachment against the Plaitirdf was to continue in force ? The Court replied in the attrmative. Sir W. bevies then nditressint the Court. stating, be wished 10 say a few words in his own justification, and in cxploontion or Ins rowioct. It was the furthest from his intention to chew any disrespect to the Court. Fie had strong reason to complain of his golicitors, whose misconduct alone had laid a fountbd . hir the enrichment. to issue against him. It was his interest that the interrogatories should 1w OtisWeSPAI with till expedition, HS there wasp large sum of money due In him. on th► settlement of the accounts; Dud ,he could assure the Court, that a drintralati had gone. repeatedly from him to his 11% , 11, and afteiwords to other Solicitors, without being able to intlnce them to give their attendance and adviCe in framing the answers. Mr. Baron GRAHAM said Its was extremely glad to hear something from Sir Malkin Lewes in the shape of an apology to the Coors—at the sa me time the matter stated did not altogether seem to be Stitillietory one. The interrogatoritat were addressed to facts within hiS own knowledge ; and it might be thought that a. gentleman of his education and ex- Oftener would have had it in his power to answer thefts in such a long interval, of himself, or at least with the assistance of it confidential friend. Now, however, it behoved him to give an answer to these iitterrogatories. other Wise the Court would substi tute anti.idiary evidence in lieu of it, Sir V. LEWES repeated, that he was most maxi- OUS, awl it was for his owu Interest to do so soon as passible. . • - IN.SOLVENT DEBTORS COURT, tittium, NoyeassEß 13. The Coi'lit was occupied nearly the entire of, this day iii hearing the case of William Twysilen. Esq. who applied for his discharge. This young Gentle -111411 is the eldest sou of Sir %Valiant Twyaden, Baronet, of Itoydon Hall, Kent. Mr. AN BREWS appeared in Court to oppose. Mr. Twystlen. in behalf or Messrs. Ments and others. Mr. ADOLPHUS appeared to oppose for Mr..' 51.cregor, land Mr. BASSETT for Mr. Kettle. Mr. ANDKEWs stated, he opposed on a variety of grounds, the principal of which were, for acting with gross fraud, for giVing undue preferences, fur concealment of property, for a collosiVe arrest, fur gambling, for profuse extravagance of the property of his creditors, and for obtainisig credit, without any visible means of ,paying his debts. The Leatsied Counsel said, that seeing Mr. Thomas Ambrose jut Court. he would cull him as a "vivito , . to prove the collusive arrest. Mr. Thomas Ambrose came to the box, and was sworn, but took Rn opportunity at the instant of withdrawibg from Court. As soon as this was dim. covered, Mr. ANDRE*/ moved that the case Should be postponed, in consequence of the absence of a material witness. He said it was only this morning lie had discovered that Mr. Ambrose wits a Material witness in the cause. Having ascertained that lie was in Court a few minutes ago, he had him called, but the initant that this perion found he was called for a particular purpose, he quitted Court. Mr. POLLOCK and Mr. HEATH, who were Coun sel for Mr. Twysden, said that Mr. Andrews should' have subprenaed Ambrose, if lie thought his evi dence material. There was no necessity for any man's staying in Court, unless he was legally brought into it. Mr. Atinarws said that Mr. Ambrose took the book, and was sworn. He was therefore in a con tempt for having withdrattn himself, after he had taken the oath. The Court' saw no reason to postrOne the cause, on the ground of the absence of this witness, in the ['thinner that had occurred. . Mr. AIDWEWS said, that he had then no other way of getting at the frets he waisted, than by ex anisning Mr. Titysden The COVlrk—le If this young Gentleman's fends and expectancies are, in fact, as they are set forth in his schedule, his Creditors must all have 200. in the pound. Would it not be better for them, therefore, to appoint an assignee, and make the suet, available ? I perceive Mr. Twysden's debts amount to 19,1841. and his credit* to upwards of 14.000/. besides which he repteamith himself as en titled in a reversionary interest On the death of Ludy 'l'wysden, hi. mother, of his share of two large sums iu the funds, one sum amounting to 8,0001. and the other to 13,6491." Mr. ANDREVis—" The creditors set little value oil this reversionary interest, and it will be seen by the examination *hat sort of credits they hove to rely upon." The Learned Counsel then pro ceeded to examine Mr. Twysilen at totisider.,ble length, anti the later, in h a nosners, stated, that he had been arrested for 8,100/. at the suit of Mr. Menlo, but through some informality in the pro ceeding he had been discharged from this arrest. He was subsequently detained in the Fleet Prison by Mr. Thomas Ambrose, and also by other credi tor'. He believed that Mr. Ambrose had formerly heel/ a wine merchant, and was now a bankrupt. He had occasionally gone fot him with a view to adjust the claims of some particular creditors. Mr. Ambrose was his detaining creditor, but did not certainly stand in that situation with his consent. for he could not look upon that man us his friend who would pot a detainer upon him when in CUP. tody. !le owed Mr. Ambrose 60/. and 201.—[On a reference to t be schedule it appeared, that Mr. Am brose was only inserted in the schedule as a creditor for 60/. instead of 80/.]—A paper was produced to the losolvent, which he said he believed was In Mr. Ainhro•e s s hand-writing. He admitted that he bill brought Mr. Ambrose this day into Court as a itsitti. and had arid for him to Streatham, Surrey; he saw him yesterday at his own lodgings in the rules of the Fleet Prison; he never knew that he (Mr. A.) had been a clerk to Mr. Kett'. the hatter; and had never said to Beaumont, the officer. that he had arranged a collusive arrest with Ambrose, and was wow a match for the rest of his creditors. H e owed Messrs. Charles Merin; and otl.ers 4.001. as grantees of NC annuity in 1812, out of which lie had oillY.rrFeired 1.4001. He could not tell why the date of the annuity was MY in his schedule; it 5..+"..--- ss mot have been a nui•take; hnt certainly Ilia sche dule contained Is statement of all he owed and all that was due to him, though a particular date nuir.; t be wrong. He had clever received a note for the payment of 4,0001. front Loud lirancliamp and Mr. Stanhope, hut he had ;.,riveti a hood of Lord cfnalnp'a to Mr. (;torgePesithind, a roach-maker,' with whom he had had large dealings for rarsiogea of different descriptions. This bond of Lord lii-art champ's was for 7,7001. Mr. l'elstland had timely other notes and securities of different kinds ; had paid hint, from time to time, a great d7:11 of moiler; he rlud not know whether Mr. Pu othiml woluid give up this 114 , 11(1 or oir, hot In: knew true well it would never he paid, fair Loud Bronchium p was wider age, and the amount for which the band was given. was for losses at play. There way, in Tact, an injunction already limed from the Court of Chancery, restraining all proceedings under thus bomb He owed a Mrs. Groves, of Clapham, the widow of• stock broker, 500/. for a horse, for I °int ers, spaniels, guns, &c. ; the price of the horse was 150/., he had sold lion to a Mr. Harvey, but was never paid for him. The debt of 500/. mentioned in his schedule to Mr.. l'eare, of No. 12, Upper George -street, Bryanstone-square, was certainly for a consideration. She was a Lady of fortune. lie did not fed himself bound to give any other explana tion respecting this debt,. except that it was a note he received from Major Warner, and euudore.l over to her. Mr. Astuauses insisted he had a right to know What consideration Mr. Tysvoclets received for this debt of 500/. which he acknowleged to be due to Mrs. Pearse. Mr. Twysden appealed to the Court, whethk r he had not already given a sufficient answer. Mr. thATR end Mr. POLLOCK contended, that the Insolvent, having admitted the debt on the far.. of the schedule, was not called upon to state the specific nature of the transaction, unless 51;; An drews appeared for Mr,. Pearse, and wanted to !hew that some fraud was mixed up with the admis sion of the debt. The COURT thought. that in saying it was a note of Major Warner's ' which he (Mr. Twysden) en dorsed over to Mrs. Pram, he had disclosed enough for the present inquiry. It was for the assignees hereafter. •in the event of this gentleman being diScharged, to sri.utiisize the claims upon his estate, and put in a train of investigation ally diluent' wlkli they thought inadmissible. Mr. Twysden said, he had no wish in conceal any thing reipeciing himself, but he thought lie ought not to be pressed to answer irrelevant (pies. bona. His examination was resumed.—He believed that Plrs. Pearse was not now to be found in Upper George-street. She now resided with him iii the rides of the Fleet, though he thought the Learned Conosel ought to observe some delicacy nit such a subject. Mr. 11'irrille, of the King's-roarl, held a post obit bond of his for 700/. as a security for 50/. He owed Mr. Keels 180/. for which Mr. K. told bilk to the amount of upwards of 2,000/. Mr. Medwin, the son of the attorney, owed him 1,05(4. but it was a debt conte.ted in Chancery. Mr. M. gave him the bill for money won at play. Mr. Wot. Harvey owed him a large sum, hot part of it was for play, and part for horses ; this was a good debt. Mr. Carper owed him 250/. brit it was H &ribald debt; as the mun was dead. Mr. Charles (Ilkley owed him 1.850/. he was a diplomatist in Vienna ; part of this woe a gambling debt. Major 'Varier owed him 1,500/. part for u gambling debt el-o. Mr. ANDREWS submitted to the Codrr, that the great Hominid amount of credits which appeared on the face of the schedule, now appeared iu its pro per light. All those credits were connected with gambling transactions—they appeared as good debts on the face of the schedule. but, ma Grittier inquiry, it came out that assignees would hare no legal recovery. He contended, that the schedule should have explained more I ully the nature of these debts; as it now stood, it did not convey frill, just, and proper account, and therefore Air. Tivywlen, if even entitled to his discharge, could not take the oath under the schedule, as it now stood. Mr. POLLOCK and Mr. HEATH contended that to do this would be to ditclose u defence to his cre ditors, if they wished to resist his demands, and involve the assignees in litigation. The Cut RT thought that it would be better to leave the particular investigation of the debts to the assignees. if it should in the end appear that Mr. Tssysden was entitled to his discharge. For the present inquiry, the Collet thought enough of the attune of the debts appeared on the face of the schedule. Mr. Twyaden. in his further examination, sti;d, that it was in 1809 hie debts first commenced—he was then of age, and not a resident in his father's house. Hr derived Ins income at the option of his father and friends. In answer to questions from the COURT, he said he was the eldest son and heir of Sir Twysden, Bart. of Kent. His father had a real property of above 7,0001. a year. Mr. l'wysden, in his explanatory examination by his own Counsel, said, that he had paid more than 13,0001. of the debts he contracted since 1809, the vouchers for which payn►enta were now iso Court, and he had already paid nearly the whole of the principal to his annuity creditors. The exu iii i tuition being now conclude►!, Mr. APlDsews contended that he hail established the grounds of his opposition. He had sl►ew►r that the arrest of Ambrose was collusive, from the cir cumstance of his detainer for so small a sum, his intimacy up to this hoar with theilnsolvent, his appearance in Court as is witness for him, and his suddenly flying from Court when he found the opposing Creditor wanted to examine him relative to the collusive arrest. The. Learned Counsel contended that he had also established the fact of the several defects in the schedule, wherein debts were stated as good, though in the examination it clearly appeared they could never be recovered, from their being composed ol; or mixed up with, gaining transactions. It was equally clear, he thought, that the Insolvent load obtained credit without any visible means of paying his debts, according to his contracts, and that he had profusely squandered the property of his creditors. Under all these circumstances, the Learned Counsel contended that the lusoltent was disdained to the benefit of the Act. Mr. Por.Loc •nd Mr. FIEATX were hestd iu 1111.JOOV