The Express.
London, England, 1853-10-10 00:00:00

taW iintelliatn rt.

COURT OP BAZILKUPICY.—SATuaDAT.
Sarong Ma. C011‘11.131,111 RN.
IN At
_MOZTUN.7CASIS U? BILL DI4L'OIINI LL.

The bankrupt, William Horton, was described as a " bill
discounter, dealer, and eltepmea, late of No. 13, Belgrave-
Once, Pimlico, but at the date of the petition (8•h February
last) a prisoner for debt in the debtors' prison for London
and Middlesea." This was the adjourned certificate meet.
ing. The bankruptcy had taken Ow on the petition of
Mr. John Edwards, of Newnhatn, Hampshire, and of
Nelson-moue, Elect friars-road, gentleman. The bankrupt
passed has last examination on the 16:h 01 April. Ile
applied fur his certificate some months ago, and the ease was
then partly heard, but was adjourned to this day for further
inquiry.
Mr. Nich dson, the official assignee, reported as follows
on the case:—" The bankrupt has filed nine sheets of
paper, which he call a bilance-shi et, but which, in fact,
only contain a list of creditors and liabilities, with a state-
ment referring to a bill of exchange given up to the
creditors, urn which the bankrupt has a claim of 501., sad
a memorandum as to the expense, charged in the balance-
sheet, being to balance the accounts. The following is
copy of the figures upon the record—

Creditors £lo3 12 1
s,4o7l7Liabilities

£4,613 9 4

Property given up £so 0 0
I,isbiLiles
Expenses

£&813 9 4

" The above figures are stated to extend over a period of
eleven years. Upon refere.ce to the list of creditors Ido not
find that any of them go back further than 1846; come-
(ineptly the statement is only for ire a years. The bank-
rupt gives up no books or repels which throw any light
upon his transactions, and the amounts due to the creditors
are unvouched by any accounts. 1 have written to all the
creditors fur statements of their accounts, but have only ob-
tained eleven, and out of this number six differ in amount
from the henkrupt's arc :wet. Beside the amount of
4051. 12s. Id. put down as creditors the bankrupt returns
the sum of 4001. as due to a Mr. Berrli This debt is placed
amongst the liabilities, but should he included in the cre-
ditors. The bankrupt girt ano statement whatever of his
trading, and there is nothing in my possession to show of
what the trading consisted, or, in fact, that Vier' was any
trading at all. There is nothing to Tench the amount put
dews aa mouses. 7551. 12s. Id."
The bankrupt bad appended the following statement to
hie balance-sheet:

"As I never kept any cash or other book with a detailed
account of any transactions as a bill discounter, I am unable
to show the profit I made by that business. The profit so
made has kept myself and family for eleven years past,
with the exception of the few debts I now owe. The debts
for which I am now liable have accrued from my having
put my some in an evil hour to the bills of other parties,
believing them to he good, and gent rally at the request of
those persons who discounted them. Then transactions are
of many ran' standing, and have, for what I know, been
satisfied. The parties whose names they bore, and upon
the faith of whose responsibility they were generally dis-
counted, afterwards sued me for the same."
Mr. Stevenson opposed, nn behalf of tho assignees of
Ferris (referred to in the official assignee's report, who was
• bankrupt in this court some four yeses ago), who claimed'
against this estate for 4001., in respect of two bills drawn by
and discounted for Mr. Scott (son of the late Sir Walter
Scott), and which had bean discounted by Ferris for the
bankrupt. The grounds of opposition were that the
bankrupt had made use of misrepresentations to Ferris to
obtain the discount of the bills, that he had been guilty of
misconduct generally as a trader, and that he had been
made bankrupt in an assumed name.
- - - •

The bankrupt, in examination, stated that he was intro-
duced to Ferris by William Shackell, en employe of the
Easters Counties Railway, and formerly in the police force.
Shackell did not bergain fur any of the money to be got by
the discount of the bills, but he asked for a coiumbsiois. All
be got was some luncheon and wine; the transaction was
not carried out, and witxesa did not consider him entitled to
it. Shackell was there or thereabouts on both occasions of
applying to Ferris to discount Mr. Scott's bills. He was
waiting for witness. Witness had taken the benefit of the
Insolvent Aet—be believed in 1840 or 1841.

(2.—llid you pass through that court in July, 1842,
under the name of William Nonillion ?
A.-1 did—sued M William Morton.
Mr. Stevenson—The petition is headed—" The humble
petition of William Nurriagton, known, sued, and com-
mitted as William Morton." Is the signature " Wm. Nor•
rington," at the foot your name and haudwriting ?
A.—lt is.
The Commissioner—Which is your real name ?

A.—Norrington.
The Commissioner—lt will never hurt you to tell the
whole truth.
Bankrupt-1 have no wish to conceal anything. I have
not contracted any debts in the name of Norrington. I took
the name of Morten about 13 years ago, and have not since
contracted any debts in the name of donington. None of
those in my schedule were contracted in that name. I was
16segaths in prison before I was beard on my petition in the
behest Debtors' Court. Altogether, I was to prison 2}
yeses, from first to last.
Mr. Btevenson—The judgment was—to be discharged at
Me end of two years from the date of the vesting order
(March, 1842), for obtaining goods from certain creditors
by false pretences.
A.—That is correct. The schedule contained perhaps 69
creditors. None of them have been paid since my dis-
akar. Of aurae, the debts are still owing. They
mounted to 2,1301. 1 have put none of these debts in my
anent balance-sheet. 1 did not think there was any ne-
assay. 1 can't give a reason why I maimed the name of
Morton in 1840.

Mr. Stevenson—Did you assume that name oa your dis-
charge from an imprisonment of twelve months in Millbank
prison, under sentence at the Old Bailey ?
Mr. Linklater (who appeared for the bankrupt) objected
to the question. The circumstance had no bearing on the
grounds of opposition.
His Honour thought it mast be answered. Everything
' was important, to show whether the bankrupt was • bona
fide trader seeking the protection of the court, or a person
coming here on false pretences.
Q.—Ware you tried at the Old Bailey Sessions in Jan.
1839?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Under the name of William Norrington ?
A.—Yes. . .

ii—Wen you sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment?
A.-1 was. 1 remained in Millbank prison till Janeary,
1840. After my discharge, I took the name of Morton.
Mr. King has given notice of opposition to this application.
Mr. King, solicitor, (a creditor) being called on by the
court, said he had no separate opposition to offer, but should
rely on the case established by Mr. Stevenson.
Mr. Stevenson submitted that the bankrupt, by obtain-
ing money from Ferris, and net heading it over to Capt.
Scott, bad caused the absolute ruin of Ferris, and dimi-
nished his estate by 4001. It was evident he bad changed
his name in consequence of his imprisonment at Millbank,
and be hod instantly commenced running into debt
wh he could.
The Commissioner—But we cannot hear over again the
charges that were brought against him in the Insolvent
Courwand punish him for what he has dune hitherto.
Whatever misdeeds he committed before 1842, the Insol-
vent Court hos visited him with punishment, and he has
suffered it. Whatever he was tried for at the Old Bailey
he suffered the punishment of it in Millbank prison. The
only question is, how those circumstances bear on his pre-
sent application. Is this a man with another name, who
is seeking the benefit of the bankrupt law by a fraud upon
that law ?
Mr. Stevenson referred to the transactions with Ferris,
maid read from the bankrupt's examination. At the time of
Ferris's bankruptcy he was not examined, being then out
of the way. It was clear he had pursued a cOtlre of oh.
tainiaig bills from thoughtless and foolish yolog mon, get-
ting them discounted, and using the proceeds; and then,
when he could go on no longer in that way, he came to
that court for relief from his liabilities.
The Commiss.oner—lt does not appear from hie former
examination whether he paid over the money to Scott which
be obtained from Ferris. (To the bankrupt)—Did you
pay the 4001. that you got to Scott?
A.—l did lot.
Commissioner—Why did you not?
A.—l offered Mr. Scott the half of the money, and he
said he would have nothing whatever to do with it. He
said he would arrange the matter with Ferris—he did not
wish me to interfere at all.
Commissioner—Then, in truth, you kept that money,
did you, and appropriated it to your own use ?
A.—l did.
Mr. Stevenson further objected that the balance-sheet
sou defective in not stating the amount of debts proved in
the Insolvent Court. There was nothing to show who
were his creditors there, or to what amount. lie (Mr.'
Stevenson) had sought fsir years for his schedule in the In-
solvent Court, and could not Had it, on account of its being
in the name of Ntrrington.
Mr. Linklater said he should not have much difficulty in
dealing with the case set up by Mr. Stevenson ou bshall of
the assignees of Ferris.
The Commissioner—The real questioa is whether the
bankrupt is not seeking frudulentty to obtain the benefit of
the bankrupt law, to which his fraud disentitles him.
Mr. Linklater contended that the assignees of Ferris had
no right to oppose for the sake of clearing the character of
Ferris; that was no legitimate ground of opposition to this
bankrupt.
The Commissioner—There is this fact, that he got 400/.,
which ought to have gone to Mr. Scott, not very creditable
credit for a bill discounter.
Mr. Linklater went over the circumstances connected
with the discount of the bills by Ferris, and contended that
the bankrupt had been acquitted from liability by both
Scott and Ferris. If Ferris had any complaint to urge why
was he not produced ?
The Commissioner—l don't quite see, Mr. Stevenson, why
you have not examined Ferris.
Mr. Stevenson was understood to say that he could throw
no further light on the case.
Mr. Linklater, in reply to the second objection, main-
tained that there was no necessity for the bankrupt to set
out his former debts under the insolvency, but merely to
state that he had been insolvent. The objection, if worth
anything, ought to have been made at the lam examination
meeting, when he stated that he had been insolvent.
The Commissioner—But he states that the insolvency
was in 1840, whaoas it was is 1842; and he said nothing

•bout his fisting passes] through the court in ar.olltr
What is the object of asking these questions esc.•pt that
the creditors nil, obtain comet information as to his lia-
Whitt s ? _

Mr. Linklater urged that no one had been dccaived.
The ereditare had had six tuinths to make their inquiries;
and in reality no creditor sppear,cl to oppose. The charge
of coming here in a false mane wu met by the fact that
the bankrupt had not come to the court on his own peti-
tion. The petitioning creditor, Mr. Edwards, establiehed
his debt and the trading to the satisfaction to the court ;
and there was not the least evidence that the bankrupt had
instigated the proceedings. In the case of Thos. Fiudi, in
where it appeared teat the bankrupt had suggested
the proceedings and paid the expense, Mr. Commission;
llolroyd refused to anent the bankruptcy on the peeled
that it was concerted—
—the petitioner having coma in un-

der the proceedings. The bankrupt had already suffered a
long imprisoamen•, and hut condoned whatever offence he
might have been guilty of.
Hie Honour said there was much in this cue that was
quite out of the ordinary course, and it would require
much consideration. The case cited by Mr. Linklater,

seemed to fall very much short of the present, and was
clearly distinguished from it. This being the case, and the
ground on which he should withhold the certificate (it he
did so), being one of very general importance, he should,
before giving his opinion, consult his learned brethren as
to their view of the toe. The principle on which he
should proceed was this: where it was made apparent to the
court that a man was availing himself of the process of the
court, not with the bonl tide intention of surrendering pro-
perty for distribution among his creditors, but for the 61b1-
plop purpose of obtaining the benefits of the bankrupt law,
aad where there wee itrong evidence (to say the lesst) that
b• was acting fraudulently, it being also a question open to
mach din-union whether he was • trader or not, under
each circumstances the court ought not to award
such an individual his certificate. If the court

came to that conclusion, undoubtedly the certificate
would be refused independently of the other grounds. lie
wished it to be distinctly understood that the case must be
discussed on the evidence in that case only ; thty could not
import into it what might have come to the knowledge of
the court aliusde, on tormer and bygone occasi a; still
less any evidence taken behind the back of the bank-
rupt, which he had had no opportunity of meeting, centre
verting, or even knowing. Neither ought he to import into
the case any of the misdeeds alleged against the bankrupt
on former occasions, and for which lie had suffered punieh-
meat. To do so would be in fact to punish him twice for
the same offence, for which he had already un-
dergone imprisonment, and the punishment had purgAl
the offence. That was • first principle of law. His
former offences were not to be mentioned in that court as
inducing punishment; the only way in which they could
be used was to show the reason why the fiat was taken out
against him in a feigned name, and he bad acquiesced in it
throughout. The principal question, which he should con-
sider must anziously, was, whether this was dune fraudu-
lently, fur the purpose of getting the benefits of the bank-
rupt law by fraud and c.llusion ; or was it a mere mistake,
honestly done, without any such purpose of fraud. lle
should take the opportunity of considering the case very se-
riously, and of obtaining the opinion of one or two of Lis
brothers; and for that purpose would adjourn the case fur
*is weeks.
IN NI CLAY.

This was the certificate meeting in the cue of Thomas
Kest Clay, woollen warehouseman, of Ironmonger-lane.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Linklater represented the assignees.
The former gentleman called attentiin to the fact that the
bankrupt had compounded with his creditors in 1851 for ss.
in the pound, and had begun his present trading with a
deficiency of 1,1001. His profits had been only 5001., while
the expenditure was 1,3401. He had also incurred liabili-
ties to the amount of 3,3061. The assets were only about 2001.
His Honour said it was most important that trader. who
bad failed once, should exercise greater caution on their
re-entering int• trade. In this case there had been great
recklessness and improvidence ; and but for the consent of
the assignees, the court would not have felt justified iu
granting an immediate certificate, which would now issue,
as of the third class.