The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-23 00:00:00

DI AZ BINNETT AND ROCRRS.

The teekruptirwere inerchaota and shinbrokers, of Corn-
bill. This was the sitting for easininatiou and discharge,
but the accounts. which are iu course of preparation by Mr.
Hilliagewortli, have not yet been filed. Their liabilities are
wider 5,0001.
Mr. Chidley, for the assigoees, and Mr. Lawrence, for the
bankrupt, agreed on an adjournment.
(Before Mr. Commissioner flolroyd.)
IN RE THZ HON. HUGH ROWLEY.

This was an application fur release from custody. The
bankrupt is described as the Hon. Hugh Howley, of 88,
Sloane-street, in the county of Middlesex ; then of ivy-cottage,
Fulham ; then travelling (or six months ou the continent of
Europe, and four months in North Wales ; then of Fulham.
read, Middlesex ; then of Upper Berkeley-street ; then of
Oxford-tetraee,Clapham-roati ; then of 13eashorough-garden,
Pimlico ; then of Hastings ; and now a prisoner for debt,
and known at some of the before mentioned places by the
mimeo' Henry Russell. The bankrupt states the cause of his
inability to meet his engagements to arise solely from the
unusual and vexatious proceedings by Mrs. Theresa
Carolina Bishop, heretofore his wife, in causing
tom to be arrested for the costa of • decree
of divorce obtained by her, contrary to a previous agree-
ment, by which the bankrupt had paid 1,4001. in respect of
costa and alimony. The debts are stated at 1,0511. ; the
three principal creditors are Mrs. Bishop, 3441. ; Mr. hivis,
Clifforietreet, Bond-street, 2501. • and Mr. L. Henreaux,
Boulogne, 2401. The other creditors are for small animate
Mr. Perk supported the bankrupt's application for release.
Mr. Bagley opposed on behalf of Mrs. Bishop. He sub-
mitted that the court had no power to order the release.
The bankrupt was in custody for non payment of mate in
the Court of Divorce, by which a decree of dissolution of
•m~rrnge had been made in November, 1859, cn the grounds
of adultery, cruelty, and desertion fur two years. He had
been arrested on an attachment fur contempt in non-my anent
of costa, and this was note debt which would give the court ,1
jurisdiction.
His Honour was understood to my that it had been held
that this was • debt.
Mr. Begley submitted that this was one of the eases ex-
cepted by the 112th section of the Consolidation Act. The
bankrupt had been found guilty of cruelty by the Divorce
Court, and Oda could hardly have been, without an assault,
one of the excepted casts. Even if the court thought
that this was • debt, it was still one of the excepted mere,
being in the nature of • wrong or • tort. It was certainly
not a case in which the court would exercise its discretion
to order the release.
Mr. Pock—Does the court think that any case is made out
for refusiog the release!
The Commissioner— I think there Is a very strong case
against you, on the ground of discretion.
Mr. Pock said he could show that the decree bore • very
different complexion from whet had been stated. The
bankrupt bad had to take proceedings against has wife in
the Westminster police-court for perjury. The decree was
an old one; the costs had been taxed in 1860, and the
beakropt had always bees to be found. The solicitors of
the wife had offered to settle the matter on payment of
1501. The bankrupt had married his late wife when be
was only 18 years of age ; they lived unhappily together for
sometime ; at length • separation was mutually agreed on,
and the bankrupt paid 1,4001. as alimony. Subsequently,
rags had been taken in the Divorce Court, and the
rnel7odpt contended that the decree had been obtained by
perjury ou the part of Mill. Bishop. He took proosediep
111 • police court, and after that the matter bad bees mai-
promised. The equities were all on the side of the
bankrupt.

The b•okrapt, exerniaad by Mr. Pea, deposed—l was
married no 10th January, 1882, being thee 18 years sad •
few months. My wits wee six sod • halt years older. 1
waseatitled to porn, property is Inlaid, and have OM NI in
for 7.801.4
The

It in akar tbo Court of Divorce km
sot come to tba noosionioa that tint difforeacte of t►tipsrtiss
barn bona «Mind by the monist of 1,4001.
lir. Peck—They did sot know it, or obe court would Doe
barn satwaniond Sin was fee • tannant. Mart w as

agreemect for invention, and it wee contrary to ell good
faith to oroosed to the Divorce Court. Had the judge
known of the paymrot of this 1,4J01., he would have dis-
missed the petition.
The COMMISII:uner—T6e question here is limply whether
the court will, iu the eateries of its discretioo, under the
112th sec., order the bankrupt'. release from custody at this
particular moment. It is bat Hume that it will be of any
eductive to the creditors to do so.
Baukrupt—lt was acknowledged in court that the charge
of cruelty woe not true. Mr. Metcalfe himself admitted
that it was highly coloured. Mr. Boppett, of Lincolo's•ioo-
fields, has admitted iu • letter that the 1,4001. was to include
the costs.

~Mr. Bagley said that that letter had been written entirely
" without prejudice."
Mr. Punk—Nothing is without prejudice when a man is
in custody.
The Commissioner—lt seems to me that I ought not to
interfere in the present stage—at any rate, not until the
bankrupt bad tiled his amounts.
Mr. Pock said the debts were very small, and had been
chiefly oustracted during the bankrupt's minority.
The Commissioner—l do not think it a case in which the
court should exercise its discretion to order the release..

Mr. Pook—Will not your Honour allow him to go out on
bad?
The C
consent.

doper—No, anleu the other side should

Bagley said they did not consent.
Mr. Pock—Will your Honour allow ins to renew this ap-
plication at the sitting for the choice of assignees?
The Commissioner—No, not until the last examination.
The bankrupt was then taken back to prison.