The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-17 00:00:00

IN NATTER OF JAM= DAIIIII.

This insolvent, who applied to be discharged from prison,
was opposed by Mr. Cooke on the nest of three persons
named Waterlow, AUin, and Creel°, as trustees of the
Loyal Friends' (lift Fund Society.
Mr Nichols supported.
The complaint was that a debt had been improperly con-
tracted with the society. In 1849, the insolvent who had been
• hem/Atop-keeper in Brick-lane, St. Luke's, petitioned this
mart under the Protection Act, and his petition was dis-
missed on account of a bill of sale he had given to hie mother-
in-law. In 1881, the insolvent executed a bond with a per-
son named Davis, as surety for 1001., for one Charles James
Plant, the treasurer, who kept the Sun Dial in Doswell-
street Davis died, and in July last the insolvent and a
person (named Orimes, in consequence of the death of
Davis. executed another bond to the society for Plant, in
1001 The second bond was executed on Tuesday the bth
July, and on the eatneday following Plant absconded, and
his defalcations were ascertained to amount to 821. se. 5d.,
for which the insolvent was sued on his bond, and was now
in custody at the suit of the trustees of the society. Since
the second bond was executed, the defalcations wore under
201.
The three trustees and the secretary were called in sup-
port of the opposition, as also Mr. Hutson their attorney.
It appeared that the trustees were not aware that the inset-
vest had petitioned as an insolvent, and believed that he
was able to ply.
1 he Chief Commissioner wished to know what grounds
the trustees bad for believing the insolventwas responsible ?
It appeared that on the first occasion the insolvent had
the bond eaplained to him, and told he was liable to 1001.
for any defalcation of Plant; and on the second occasion be
was conversed with oa the same subject, and was considered
a ',Arent man.
The insolvent stated that he signed the bond 18 months
after ho petitioned the court. He bad no means of paying
the 100/. for which he became surety to the society. Me
had known Plant for 12 year', and be,iered he was a re-
sponsible man. His debts were 472/., and some were before
tte former insolvency.
Mr. Cooke submitted that the insolvent had contracted a
lial.,lity for Plant without any chance of paying it. He ap-
peared for • class of men who formed a benevolent society,
and they deserved the ayispatLy of the mart and its protec-
t:on, when they complained that the insolvent had incurred
a debt with them without reasonable or probable expecta-
tions of payment.
Mr Nichols relied on the evidence as not being sufficient
ti establish the complaint. Since the second bond the de-
falcations were not above 121. The ease had utterly failed
y the evidence.
The Chief Commissioner said the only question was
whether the insolvent was justified in becoming surety
far Plant. It was net sowsted that there was fraud in
the transaction. It was Weever clear that he know hie
ciccusatassis, although the society did not. Hs thought

the aociety had been easily satisfied with his secii-ity ; he
was a beer-shop keipir, and his Commis.ioner's)
opinion was that suca persons woad have en ugh to do to
y their own deli:* on being suddenly asked for payment.
Itwas a liab.lity incurred without means of payment, and
was similar to a bill of exchange given for another party.
His Honour pronounced a judgment of five months from
the vesting order made on the 23rd November, at the suit
of the trustees of the society.