The Express.
London, England, 1855-03-08 00:00:00

Law intelUotsct.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Kacn 7.

111702111 1L COIMISIONII nearer.
IN MN NATE= OE GIORGI WASHINGTON 311.11E0N.
This ease, board yesterday, was now concluded.
• Melissa een
sertifieste from the surgeon of Qu's
Psi= wasproduced. It stated that the insolventthe bad been
ander Wearer, and had laboured under songestion of the
Web. On Saturday he had • severe attack, and, in the
Opinion of the swims, further ezeitenteat and confinement
sight lead to fatal results.
Oa the part of the opposition, a surgeon namedtX;
was called. He had attended the insolvent in Fia
eind sad in Oinseetemerrace, Hyde-park. H. described
OM Meditate& free liver. He would not take upon his
OWN vefialidint sonfinement, after the certificate read of
nmas, mall have upon him. Medical men differed
eery much is MO opinion.
Mr. Comminioner Murphy thought it was immiscible
after the certain* that he oould order any further impri-
sonment of the ineolven,. Already he bad been three
months in coded', and if he pronounced a judgment he had
line power to let him out of prison. "Am I," asked the
CONNOittiolltri " to send this man back to prison I"
Kr. Nichols, for the opposing creditor, slid if his opinion
was asked, he should certainly say " Yee." Considering
the manner in which the creditors had been treated, he
should be left to the creditors, wo could let him out. If
the Commissioner would consult thhe practice of the Chief
Osomissioner he would find that although illness was to be
regretted, yet when a cane was proved, the court 'gra liound
set upon it.
Mr. Commiadoner Murphy said he should not take the
judgment of say one else. He did not require the opinion
dear other in matters of common sense. He thought the
imprisonment the insolvent had already suffered, coupled
with the certificate that its extension would lead to fatal,
'malts, was sufficient to justify him in discharging the in-
solvent. Punishment was not a matter of vengeance to be
meshed to the estreme.
The Court proceeded to give jadzment on the several
points urged against the insolvent seriatim. There was no
fraud in the inception of the debts to the orposiog creditor,
nor in the manner of obtaining their goods. The only
*Mince oa the part of the insolvent was that, when he bad
a large sum in his possession, he gave it to his wife, who
handed it to his brother, knowing, as the insolvent must
have done, that he would be arrested, and be obliged to
apply to the court. No doubt he should have come to this
court, and had his property distributed among his creditors.
There was, however, no fraud in the sue, and as this court
was not to be used for the pumas of vengeance, and con-
sidering the imprisonment already suffered, and the medical
certificate, he felt satisfied in his conscience, although his
conduct might be questioned, and he should order him to
be discharged.
Discharged accordingly.
lit IN RODIN! CONIES.

This was a protection cue. The insolvent, a lineadraper
at Stepney, was opposed by Mr. Reed for Messrs. Tomkina.
Mr. Sargood supported.
In accounting for property, the insolvent alleged that he
bad paid 261. to an artist named Powell, for money lent.
Powell was celled, and denied that he ever had MI. to lead.
He ',membered signing a book (produced) when he was
tipsy. The insolvent persisted in having had the money,
and repaying it, and, on the other hand, Powell was positive
that he never had the money. A witness was called, who
proved that the insolvent did not know Powell until after
the period he had stated he knew him.
The court held that the evidence of the witness kicked
the beam, and that he mast believe Powell.
Petition dismissed.