The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-21 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

before he pre it to the public: but De Velnos was e good name,
and covered a multitude of absurdities. This man kept no books.
He went into a shop for six months and then left it, and now says
that he is ruined by this publication. The Learned Sergeant, in
conclusion, said he thought this no subject tOr damages, and that
the Jury should not give more than a farthing damages.
The Loan Cuter Jurrics.sumnied up. He raid he hoped
this ease would teach editors to be more cautious. They were cer-
tainly responsible for articles they inserted for money ; and though
in the common acceptation of the terms, no malice might appear,
yet no greater malice could be evinced than to publish what
might be injurious to the character of an individual. Tha editor
put himself in ins place of Mr Canham, and was responsible.
His Lordship then commented on the nature of the libel, and ►aid
that the Jury should take into consideration, in estimating the
damages, the injury the publication of such a libel might prodo re.
The Jury retired for a few moments, and found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages ant shilling.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, TunDAT, Esc. 20.
Thomas Paghorn bring brought up. was opposed by Mr. Pol-
lock on the part nt a creditor named Bill, and also by Mr. Cooke
for another named Gotobed. . _

Air. HEATH was for the insolvent, who is a clerk in the Comp-
troller's Office of the Board of Excise, and an officer on the half.
pay of the royal attillery. From the facts stated, the insolvent's
wife conducted the millinery business, and the opposing creditor
gave her credit. The insolvent stated, that his wife had surrep-
titiously taken his books and herself off in March last,.and that
either of them could prove that there were two debts due to him.
His wife lately visited him in prison, hut he refused to see her. Ile
supposes, that in addition to money, &e. which she took from him
at the time of her departure, she also got all the good deists that
were due to the concern. lie estimated her expenses at 2401. in
four journeys to Liege, in Flanders. Though these sums were not
actually advanced by him, yet they must have been drawn from
the common fund. Nrbile his wife and he were absent on imisiness
from town, their house In London wan broken open, hut the Grand
Jury threw out the bill again/fit the thief. He learned from his wife
Mat she had a contingent interest in some harms, and in a mine
near Liege. The insolvent's salary from the clerkship at the Ex.
cise (which ceased since his imprisonment) was 1001. a year ; and
his half-pay VI.
A letter read in Court confirmed the cessation of his salary ; but
added, that the Corcmissioners might, on petition, restore his
situation.

The insolvent stated, that throarh a Mr. Gray he had cautioned
Mr. Hill to restrict his wife's credit to 301. Mr. Hill however in-
creased the amount to 1201. He did not see Mr. Hill untll the
credit had advanced considerably.
Mr. Jonas Gray deposed that he gave the csution to Mr. Hill's
managing clerk ( dlr. Turner).
Mt. POLLOCK♦ on the part of Mr. Hill, contended that it was
insolvent's own fault that he had not gotten the books from his
wife ; and the Court WQUIII therefore, he was sure, not allow him
to derive benefit from a schedule of which the items were composed
on the most vogue surmises.
Mr. COOKE, on the pan of Mr. Gotobed, exambinl the insol-
vent, eho stated that his wife's creditors, among whom was the
opposing one, met in last February, when, on the books then pro-
duced, there appeared good debts of 1081. These, he believed,
were collected by his wife since that time, but he did not inquire
from the debtors. Before a second meeting of the creditors the in.
solvent ascertained that part of the goods furnished were smuggled,
and hit situation in the Excise prevented him from proceeding fur-
ther with the meeting. As Mr. Hill threatened him with conse-
quences, the insolvent thought it incumbent on him to give infor-
mation at the Custom-house, and a seizure ensued ; but the insol-
vent neither received nor expected any benefit from the penalties
indicted.

Mr. Cool: E insisted that It was imperative on the insolvent to
rectify several items in his schedule before he could derive any ad-
vantage from the Court's decision.
Ilir. HEATH thought the opposition was of a most extraordinary
description. It wns a curious and anomalous proceeding in a cre-
ditor to admit in the King's Courts that he trafficked in contraband
articles, when honest tradesmen, by competition with such illegal
practices, were driven to ruin. It was not attempted to give proof
that the insolvent was aware of the debts contracted by his wife.
That lie had given adequate caution was, on the contrary, evidently
the fact.

Mr. Poxxocc, in reply, did not deny that the goods supplied
were in some respect contraband, but the insolvent was not entitled
to shelter himself, under such a plea, from affording such explsi.a.
lions as this Court always deems requisite. He ought to return an
account of those debts which were due to his wife, if he would be
exonerated from those persons to whom she was indebted.

The Co uliTconsidcred that it would be too severe to remand the
insolvent under the circumstances which surrounded the present
case. To warrant such a course, after the caution alleged, and not
disproved to hare been given by the insolvent, and after the occur-
rences at the meeting of creditors in February, the opponent, of
his discharge should have furnished a stronger case than that which
they submitted. ilowever, the insolvent's schedule was not drawn
in a manner sufficiently precise to enable him with safety to vnuoh
on his oath for the contents. He must therefore amend it, and if
he chose it was competent for him to do so immediately. The in-
solvent having alter a short absence complied with the directions of
the Court, he was accordingly discharged.

Edward Brown, of George-street, Richmond, Surrey, wes next
brought up, and opposed by Mr. POLLOCK, on the part of Row
and Co., and of Say and Greenfield, and by Mr. Cootie on the
part of Mycrs.
The Insolvent, examined by Mr. POLLOCK—I have a copyhald
interest in a haute. I have also another house. Ido not know
what the cost of the building of this house amounted to. Ido not
know whether I paid for building 2,0001. or 3,0004 or less. I ex-
pected the carpenter's work " gratis," as it was done by my father-
in-law, with whose daughter I got no fortune. He advised me to
pull down the old house. After he became childless, he sued me
for 8001. as the expenses „in his line. I spent besides 4001. or 6001.
I mortgaged that house for 7001. I du not know the time, but the
schedule will tell.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER—If stated in schedule, you surely
should know

Insolvent—About 9 years ago.
Insolvent's examination continued-1 afterwards mortgaged it for
300!. more to the same persons. The 1.2001. cost of building in-
cludes both houses. I bold the Image for amount of mortgage to
Mr. Broome. I could not pay the interest without difficulty.
The house was valued by the surveyor of the Norwich Union
Office, and by another person. Dlr. Broome did not know of any
transaction between me and my brother. I received from my
brother 2861. He is a gentleman—lives on his property. He was
brought up as a watchmaker, but did not follow journeywork
long. He was since in the coal business. Is not my eldest brother.
I mean that he has funded property. Webster, the auctioneer,
valued the stock. I kept no account of the value. The money
which my brother paid me, I paid away, as also a further sum to
3lr. John Noyes. Mr. Noyes is a gentleman, and lives at
Richmond. He is not in business. I never heard called my
relation.

Mr. Pena-one—lli he your brother-in-law ?
Insolvent—He married my sitter. I paid him because he was
constantly kind to me during the last 12 years in money advances.
In about five or six days after I paid him that sum I went to gaol.
I admit that I got the goods from Messrs. Say. 1 did not think
that other creditors had so good a claim on me as Mr. Nnyea had,
for they got various sums from me previously, in the course of our
dealings. My brother took up the business I quitted. The goods
from Say and Co. were perhaps had after the 30th September, but
were agreed for perhaps two or three weeks before delivery. 1 do
not know who drew up the agreement between my brother and my.
self. I rent a house at Citfilen. I do not know where my wife is ;
she may he at Clifden. There is some furniture there ; I did not
give an account of it in my schedule, but • broker went to value it.
Another peeson lodges in the house. I do not know but my wife
carries on the business of a dresa.tnaker ; she has no annuity or
property, to my knowledge.
James Broome being called for as a witness, and not appearing,
after some delay
Gertrge Greenhill was examined, and dermal, that he carries on
the tallow-chandlery business in Bury-street, St. James's, and that
he supplied goods to the amount of 481. to insolvent. These goods
were fetched in a bag by the insolvent's order ; they were ordered
about a week before. He drknot know of the arrangement be-
tween insolvent and his brother. He thought it unfair that his
goods should be taken in such an underhand way, and therefore lie
op the insolvent.
=trent examined--I dealt for many years with Messrs. Row
and Barry. I paid them thousr.•.ds of pounds; my father dealt
with them before ire. I owe, on balance of accounts, more than
1,000/. I paid in part Mr. Noyes's debt of 8001. with the proceeds
of the sale to my brasher.
James Broome examined-31y wife has the writings of the deed
of sale. She paid the purchase money ; she bought it out and out.
I said no such thing as that the insolvent had a power of redeeming
without my wife's content. Shea Broome and Brown are sister
and brother. I consider the sale to have been tot full value. The
money was paid to Mr. Griffin, the trustee.
John Nom examined.—l live on my property. I lent the in-
solvent various sums of money to keep him up. (The witoesr was
here so affected as to weep.) I should not have asked him for the
money, but having sustained two heavy losses otherwise, I was
obliged to press him. I know Mr. Griffin, and that the money
wax paid to him. I was a builder at the time of sale, anti would
not give I,OOW. for the house, because it was so very badly built.
The house is held in trust, an that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Broome can
yell it. Insolvent paid me 3001. I knew that insnivent's brother
had a legacy left to him to: the purpose of setting him up in bu-
siness.
Mr. Cootie, for the creditor Myers, said that his debt was
admitted, and there was theretere no occasion of proof.
Mr. HEATH thoughttlifferendy, and should like to see Mr. My-
ers present (Myers, it appears, is on the Continent.)
Insolvent examined by Mr. Coolg.—l owe Mr. Myers 331. ;
there was no collusion in the arrest. It took place in Holborn. I
do not know the arresting officer. I got into the Bench the came
day, and the next I presented my petition. Mr. Myers never said
he would withdraw hula detainer UtliCSI his amount was paid. I
drew outo model for Mears. Barclay and Perkins. It was made
of paper and cork ; not worth intrinsically three farthings. I in-
tended it as a present. I can't tell my claims on the Norwich
Union Office. I had an establishment at Bath, but have no in.
wrest in it now. My wife's millinery is her amusement. My bro-
thee was tor a long time in the chandlery business.
Mr. POLLOCK said that Mr. Broome had been brought up to
/Ando'', in the preseinewse, because hi was reported to have said
that it was in the insolvent's power to effect a redemption when-

ever be pleased. Beeidee, there appeared to be some contradiction
in selling a house Tor lees than the sum expended in the building
of it, and this anomaly Mr. Broome had reconciled to reason, by
the explanation he gave of the state of the structure. As to Mr.
Noyes's debt, it was rot,ff;puted ; but Messrs. Say and Greenfield
have reason to complain of undue preference shown to him, as the
articles that belonged to them were not delivered, but sent for by
insolvent's orders when he knew he was in a state of insolvency.
Mr. COOKE said that he was induced to curtail his examination,
as the chief points had been anticipated by his Learned Friend;
but he thought he had good ground for opposition, when the insol-
vent, on the very verge of insolvency, effected a sale to his brother,
and transferred the prodeee to Mr. Noyes, his brother-in-law. He
did not impute blame to any person for accepting such a preference,
but he considered the insolvent exceedingly reprehensible in giving
the opporturity to any oar.
Mr. Hien"- it, for the insolvent, replied that it should be mei.
deed that Mr. Noyes and Mr. Broome are still large creditors,
and !hat the money was in the one case seated in a trustee. Suf.
ficient allowance was not made for the state in which the insolvent
was plated. lie felt that he could not do as much as he wished, but
should do nothing. because in liquidating a debt he could
not do so without proving that he acted under the impulse of
gratitude? It could not be expected that he would unnecessarily
reduce such persons to adopt proceedings at law to compel his
compliance, and he surel• should not be censured for contrary con-
duct. Considering that, in the course of thirty years' dealings, the
other creditors hal received money from him at various times, it
was not unfair that he should give something to those that were
excepted from the previous disbursements. It should also be re-
membered that the insolvent's brother was left a considerable pee.
perty to settle in business. ♦Pith respect to the Roods of Messrs.
Say and Greenfield, the transaction was not an isolated one, and
it was their fault not to have delivered the goods sooner, as they had
been treated for long before.
The Cnter COMMMIONER said that the first impression of
the ease was decidedly unfavourable to the insolvent, but further
investigation considerably altered its effect. It was clear, from the
evidence of Mr. Noyes, that lie urged the payment of the sum due
to him, order very imperative circumstances ; therefore the insol-
vent might have paid him without any fraud. The case hears
more strongly against the insolvent in respect to else transaction
between him and his brother, in which the Messrs. Say and Green-
field were implicated. There the insolvent was decidedly wrong.
He should not have allowed the goods which were ordered In his
name to get into the possession of another person. Under this
view the zudgment of the Coutt is, that with respect to the debt of'
Messrs. bay and Greenfield only, the insolvent shall be confined
within the walls of the prison for eight calendar months.

POLICE.

OLILDRALL,

.....
Thomas Gray, who was charged on Saturday with defrauding
Mr. Weatrup, a flour dealer, out of two quantities or floor, was
brought up for re-examination yesterday, before Mr. Alderman J.
J. Smith.

After the minutes of the former hearing had been reed over, the
Alderman expressed his opinion that the evidence would not sus-
tain a charge of fraud as to either transaction, and the whole
question now was, whether a forgery had been committed by utter-
ing a fictitious acceptance.
Mr. Miller, the solicitor for the prosecution, then called Mr.
Westrup into the box, who stated that when the bill for 1001.,
drawn by the prisoner Gray, had been returned dishonoured, he
himself went in search of the acceptor, recording to the direction
upon the docoment, at the East and West India Chambers, Fen-
church-street, but could discover no such place. At the East India
Chambers in Leadenhall.street, where he had received the some.
reigns for Gray, he found the chambers (on the first floor) had been
r:n red by a Mr. Rutledge.
The Alderman asked the witness whether Its Bought after the
drawer at the same time ?

Witness—Yes ; at the place of his business. No. 4. Staining-
lane ; anti there I was told by Mr. Coster, that Gray was a rogue,
and he was afraid I should never get a farthing.
Mr. BUTLER. for the prisoner, Asked whether Mr. Wectrup did
not know or learn from a Mr. Creed, that such a firm as Bond and
CO. had offices at the East India Chambers, and hrd been publish-
ed in the list of swindlers?

The form of this question was objected to ; but in answer to
other inquiries, he said he entirely forgot all names as far as re-
spected the bill which he presented at Gray's request, but he un-
derstood that the 1001. bill was drawn on tha same party where he
had seen the large quantity of sovereigns.
Mr. BUTLER then called for the DireetoryoflB24, to show that the
firm of Wm. Bond and Co., of the East India Chambers, was no-
ticed in its pages, but the book was not at hand.
Mr. Kilby, the keeper of the East India Chambers, in Leaden-
!rill-street, during the last four yearn, said he let the offices, No.
13, described by Mr. NVestrup„ to one Rutledge, who occupied
them eighteen months. For sonic time the names of Kettle and
Co. and Williams and Co. were upon the gate, and afterwards
that of William Bond and Co. The latter was upon the gate
for nine mouths, at the date of the one hundred potted bill (July),
and for two months after. No Mr. Bond was ever pointed out
to him.

Mr. BtrrLE• contended .hat there was no ground for the fur-
ther detention of the prisoner ; he had proved that there was such
a firm u Bond and Co, and he had expected to be able to produce
Rutledge, who had a power of attorney from Messrs. Bond and
Co. to accept bills and transact other business for them. He was,
however, lie understood, prevented from attending by • fit of the
gout. Never were sales more complete, he said, than in the
two transactions between Gray and Westrup ; there was no
fraud. A flaming report had appeared In the public papers; there
were Inaccuracies in the statement, and with the permission of
the Alderman he would just put a question to Mr. l'restrup, to do
away with the impression it had made. He could see no reason
why the character of Mr. Coster should be traduced more than that
of any other man.

Mr. Westrup was then ea/led, end asked by Mr. Butler whe-
ther he had not had dealings with Mt. Coster both before and since
the transactions with Gray, in which he had received payments ac-
cording to the agreements ?
Mr. Westrup—l never tied any transactions with Mr. Coster ; I
newer sold him any thing.
Mr. BUTLER—YOU swear that? (with acme surprise)
Mr. Westrup—Yes, I do.
A gentleman then stepped forward and said, that in consequence
of the reports in the newspapers he had brought with him one
of Messrs. 11,nd and . Co. dishonoured bills for twenty-tire
pounds, for the purpose of comparing the hand-writirg of the
acceptances, which preyed to be dissimilar. The drawer of the
bill was one Jacobs, who had taken the benefit of the Insol.
vent Act.

Mr. Alderman J. J. SMITH expressed a doubt whether Rut.
ledge could, under the alleged power of attorney, accept a bill,
without stating upon the face of it that the acceptance was by
procuration. It was the practice of partners to write the r.ame
of the firm simply, but Rutledge did not stand in that relation.
After some desultory conversation, the examination was ad.
Rurned till to-morrow (this day) a summons fur the appearance of
Rutledge being issued, and the prosecutor directed to bring fur-
ther proof that there was no such firm in renchurch-street as
that of Wm. Bond and Co,---the address given upon the bill.