The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-24 00:00:00

robbery.
Verdict—Guilty. Sentenced to be transported for seven years.

CIVIL. SIDE.
[llefore 3lr. Justice Li TTLtDAtt.I
HALLAHD V. ACLAXD.
This wu an action brought by the phalli:la* to recover damspe
for a grieeo is injury which he was aileged to bare sustained by
mean of the defendant's dog.
Mr. Eersunt WILDE (with whom was Mr. W ;nowt) staled
the phoning 's one, tie said that the plaintiff and defendant were
both fanners, resident in this county. and in the same neighbour-
hood. The defendant was the owner of several furious and vicious
dons. and whenever they got loose. which happened not unite.-
, ten ly, their practice was to pursue and worry the sheep of all Ow
t rm ra in the neighbourhood. On the 27th of May last ati enter.
t. inn nt of this kind took place., the defendant's dogs fastening oa
a soup belonging to the plaintiff, and for this damage the present
action was brought. To support it, witnesses would be produced to
prove that the dog which had done the mischief was the property
of the plaintiff, and had been seen at his house. It wu not to be
tolerated that any man should keep ferocious dogs to the injury
of his neighbours; and if any man did keep animals who bad such
an instinct for mischief, they should he kept chained or triuzalei fur
thesecurity ofother persona property. The injury for which the present •
action was brought ;vas not the only one of a similar kind which
plaintiff had suffered. Several of his sheep had been sadly torn end
injured by those dogs, and in more instances than one the poor ani.
mats die 4 soon after. flitter these circumstances, he thought it
necessary to come before a Jury of his Country for compensation.
What defence would be offered by. the ingenious gentleman at
the other side, he could not anticipate : there could be no
real ground of defence; and his Learned Friends would have to art
it up for a defence, either that the injury was not done at all, or that
the dog which did the injury W 1.4 not the defendant's. The evi•
Bence would put both these points beyond a question, and upon
their testitymiy he should confidently rem his client's case.
Philip Selway, a dwtrfi.h, stupid boy, said he was nineteen
~
years of age; he lived wi.li the plaintiff (farmer Defined), and re.
metnb-'red some of the abuts being injured on the morning of Mon.
day, the 2/d May last. {Fitness went out to attend on the sheep,
and observed one of it-win lying on die grass, and a dug pulling at
the fore-leg. witness hillowed the dog to the defendant's (farmer
Acland's) house. and saw hits in defendant's presence. M'i Weill
unit:rotood that that dog was sine destroyed. He had often seen
him previous 0 the day in question, with Carmel Acland's wife.
C ross-examinal.—{Vitness recollects seeing a white toile: boll.
i dog at foster Acland's house. Knows Aclaiill's ion, James, who

I•
r

,is it a short distance from his father. Wee never at his cottage, I
bat knows where it is. Was never told to say he saw the dog at
Aeland's that worried his master's sheep, nor did any one eprok to
',lien on the subject before be came to Court. ;No one told him
what to say. Can't recollect peeing the dog more than once with
Acland ; it was then small, hut was growing up to he a little
At sh. 'lt was a red and white dog he saw worrying the sheep.
.That was the dog he saw at fainter Acland's; he remembered to
.have wen him but rote.
Robert Mole. a farmer, living at l'pculm, statel that he was a
'neighbour to both the parties in the present action, and that a sheep
Of his nw a was lacerated by a dog about Chrismas last. In con/le-
git/ince of slot he then beard. he went to fanner Adand's, and upon
'seeing him, said he had woof that it was his dog injured the sheen,
and if the dog was not killed he srould midst on being paid rot his
sheen, as the doe would certainly kill a great many more it he was
left "dive. Defendant then promised to keep the slog confined, and
said if he broke loose and injured any one's sheep again, he would
'fee) himself belted to pay for the injury done. He told witness if
•hisasheep were again injured by the dog, he should have full
'satisfaction. Wine/a'. elieep was hit in the riFbt shoulder.
That is the part which dogs usually bite. M antis heard
'of the injury done to farmer Hallard's sheep., , mid accom-
panied loin and the first ;violate (little Selway) to the defen.
:donee house. Witness asked farmer Acland whether he
was wilting II) give farmer Hallard satisfaction for the injury dome
"to his steep 7 Defeegant replied that he knew nothing of any
iejoey drew by Ins dogs. nor did he care. Witness said, " Farms,
Arland, if you killed your dog when I advised you, none of this
t sse misfortine an] bad business would happen." Silures further
;aid to dcactielant, " now thine( say your dog don't follow sheep,
ear he do; and, I say, if you let your dog there low, and he don't
seize a sheep, I'll make satisfaction myself for the injury." Then
farmer Acland said he would accept no such proposal, and that
" they were an a pack of rogues together." for they wanted him
to kill his dog only to have an opportunity of taking away his hay,
and straw, and corn. {Witness knew that farmer Adana had two
dogs. It was the terrier or bull-dog that worried the sheep. Hal-
lard's sheep wcrelnjured by. niece than one Ong ; that witness could
state from his own observation. Saw ti:e of Hallard's sheep that
had been injured. Little Selwav pointed out the dog he saw
worrying the sheep, and farmer Ached had him killed the follow.
ing mottling.
Crow-examined—Witness heard the defendant eseaathat he l:cpt
he dog to protect his house and property at night. That was the
balaleg, Defendant shewed witness where the dog was kept at
'night. and witness thinks it was very easy fee the dog to break loose
loam that place.
Jonathan Hallard (son to the plaintiff). saw the sheep on the 22d
May, after :hey were torn by the dogs. It appeared that two dogs
were engaged in the mischief. Five of his father's sheep were
cruelly injured.
• several other witnesses were examined ; and their testimony went
to support the fact that :!eland's doge were extremely furious and
s whom. and andel not be governed even by their master after they
came in sight of sheep.
Mr. C. F. M'itataus (with whom was Mr. Co tea [nor.) then
a aliened the Jury for the defendant. lie said he was prepared to
poste a complete case, which should be consistent with all the
material parts of the evidence edthiced for the plaintiff. He was
reedy to admit that the red dug, which was proved to have done
the mischief, had really done it; but lie was prepared to prove
that the dog which had so injured the sheep was not the defend-
ant's. "It might belong to the defendant's son, however, for he had
S dreg of the kind described. As to the white terrier, or bull-dog,
ha he was sometimes 7411 ed, he admitted that to be the defendant's;
but hr should prove gem it wits an utter impossibility for that dog
to have beets ou; of firs :uaster's yard on the night the plaintiff's
sheep received the injure.
• In support of this defence, James Acland, the defendant's son,
'leas examined. He proved that he was married, and lived in a eottsge
distant three qnarters of a mile from his father's house. This cot-
tage he rented from hie father at Od. a week, and attended upon his
bullocks also. lie had a dog which his father had given him when
it was about a month old. This dog witness hanged after lie heard
that farmer Hallard's sheep were injured. This dog witness
tent to gitard his hearse, as his wife was timid, and was
sitraid to live th a solitary house. Witness was working
at big father's when the plaintiff, Dogk, and Selway, came
rasout the sheep. Witness's father was not at home. Hal-
lard stook: to his mother, saying " your dogs have injured my
sheep." Witnestia mother said I have no dogs, I have only one
white dog. Hallard replied that it was tint a white dog, It was a
r'ed dog worried his sheep, and that little Selway could point him
out Witness's father only kept a white dog. He was kept as a
aaerdian of the house, but was fastened every night in a court,
whien had a five-barred gate to it, over which the dog could not
yet. Witness hanged his dog, that there might be no more noise
elereit it. The place where the sheep were injured is a quarter of a
mile from defendant's house, but it is three times as far from wit-
:se/ea residence.
Anne (fantod was in the defendant's service more than a year.
Was present when Henkel came about the sheep, on the 22t1 of
May last. James Acland (defendant's son) had a sheep dog, her
mow had a white dog only. The son worked toe the father every
ittr, and the dog followed him. Witness recollected the 21st May,
when the heel swarmed, and her master, in presence of James
Print; and Henry (toff, put them in a bole in the wall. It was the
anuom at night to fasten the dog in the court yard. and put takes
sod an ',Ocoee under the gate, to prevent him from getting out.
This wee done regularly every night. The dog was fed every
day, and kept tied ; at night he was let loose in the yard.
—The gate was barricadoed, and railed under and aver,
ut that the dog could not possibly get over. Witness got up at
tour o'clock in the morning, and then always saw the dog there.
He was again tied up at seven o'clock, and remained so all day.
Witness remembered' Mallard and the others cooling to her mis-
ters. shunt the dogs. Her mistress said she had bat one dog. and
that was a white one. Helloed said the mischief was done by a
:,.seep dog. Her mistress said the sheep dog was not hers. James
Acland destroyed the sheep dog the following morning.
Several other witnesses corroborated this testimony.
' Mr. Sellearlt WILDE then replied, and -the Learned Judge
having summed up the evidence, the Jury returned a verdict for
ale plaintiff—Damages 31.
CROWN SIDE.
'.lames Ilreoley, an old grey-headed man, was put to the bar,
/ barged withinciting a person. named Hendy, to commit a de-
:as-able crime, -and also with attempting to commit it.
-Mr. Tokens conducted the prosecution, and Ma. BERD ap.
i.eared for the prisoner.
James Strike stated that he was an officer of excise, and was
returning from his rounds, through the parish of Tavistock, be.
*run the hours of 10 and 11, on the night of the 23d of June
last, and beheld the prisonei and a person named newly in a
bole, and le. a Mutation which excited his suspicion, winch induced
1-Ira to call out " what do you do there I" Prisoner appeared
i'u gust confusion, and said •'• the man has lost his hat." Wit-
t sits suspected something improper. and having wet a person
tanned Williams, he and witnew returned together and watched
reamer and his companion. whom they beheld in a situetlen
s ah rendered their diabolical intemiun ro longer a matter of
debt. The night was moonlight, and witness swore he could
tot be mileaken in the persons of those he desaribed. He was
acquainted with Hendy, but did not know much of the prisoner.
Avery:aids the prisoner said to witneosafaat he hoped, in consi-
taxation of los (prisoner's) wife and family, witness would not in-
tom' against him. The witness underwent a long and ingenious
cross-examination, but nothing was elicited that could in any de.
grit shake his testimony.
John Il'illisens accompanied the last witness, and described
what he had seen nearly in the same words.
The prisoner was found guilty.
Justice 13 AsELet said there was no use in addressing any ob-
servations to a person, so wanting in the proper and natural feel-
tags ef a man as the prisoner was proved to be. He was not in.
*need capitally, which was moat fortunate for him, as in that case
hie life mast have been the penalty. The sentence of the Court,
therefore. was, that he should be imprisoned and kept to hard la.
boiir in the House of Correction for the space of two years.
I.'raoris Louoder, a small, thin looking man, whose trade was
that of a horse-breaker, was convicted of an attempt to commit a
crime, upon the evidence of Mary Budd, the wife of a de-
cent farrier, who was returning front Taviatock market, when she
witnessed the revolting transaction, which she related with t
greatest dearness and impartiality. After the misstate perceivla
that be was observed, he called out to the prosetutrix to forgive
hint, and she replied. " I freely forgive you, but may God do so."
She afterwards mentioned what she bad seen to her husband, and
aid circumstance having come to the ears of a Magistrate.. he
isstkal a warrant, upon which the prisoner was appieltended. He
wee sentenced to be confined and kept to hard luhour in the 'louse
of Correction for two years.
Tacoma, Cooker (aged 17) was indicted for violently assaulting
fee person of Ann Shepherd, a child of nine years of age, with
latent to commit a capital offence.
Carpet sue Lang stated that she was now the wife of Roger Long,
net that Ann Sheplicad was her illegitimate child, having bees
horn before her marriage. On the 13th of June last witness loft'
her house at Ugborough to tke care of Ann Shepherd, and upise
her mown heard the child cry out that " ale would tell her 1110.
Ace." Witness then entered the house, and found the prisoner
there. (She here described the situation of the prisoner and the
Witness acciated the prisoner, who said he had done no.
ti.ing. Witness said, " You brute, it is no; the heat time you made
'l-1 attempt ;" and prisoner answered, " I never tried but twins
before."
Cross-examined by 31r. 81.71113-IVitness beat the child after-
wards for not telling what had previously occurred. The door of
the house was wide open, and any person entering might have seen
the prisoner and the child. There was another house within a
s.one's-throw of witness's. The prisoner was In and out of witness's
louse frequentl y before.
`the child, wise dial rot appear to he remarkably intelligent, was
mot examined. and clearly described what may be inferred from
tue evidence ef Cath,nne Lang.
'ln Ryan addre,sen the Jury for the prisoner.

SATURDAY, JULY 22.

II

read what was written on the paper, which she 'was tmable to do ;
but upon applying to a third person, it was discovered to contain
these words:— Mr. White, I send you a riog a size larger than
the oilier, price 18s. 6d." The old woman thought that as the ring
was so valuable, a reward would be offered for it, and with this ex-
pectation advanced the prisoner 25., which he accepted, " nothing
loath ;" bat with the understanding that when the old woman re-
ceivcd the reward, she should fairly divide it with him. She after-
wards ascertained that the value or the ring was not above a penny.
Mr. Justice (lASEI.EE said that the prisoner was indicted Inc a
felony ; but that the evidence did not support the indictment. Ile
therefore directed the Jury to acquit the prisoner.

CIVIL SIDE.
At the sitting of the Court this morning, a respectable middle-
'feed man of staid demeanour, who had applied on the preceding
evening to be exempted from serving es a Juror, on the ground
that he was *dissenting preacher and school-master, again re-
peated his application.
Mr. Justice LITT Imetre-Sir, you gave me to understand
last night that your wife was a linen-draper, and that you assisted
her in the business, besides keeping a school.
Applicant—Ares, my Lord ; but I conceive that being regularly
educated, and having entered on the Ministry nearly thirty years
ago, anti being ordained according to the forms of the church to
which I belong. I ought to be excepted.
:Hr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Aye, but you told me you assisted
your wife and family in the linen drapery business, that you actu-
ally did a part of the business.
epplicant--Yes, my Lord, about a sixth part of the business..
Mr. Justice LITT I.F.DALE—WeII, Sir. you have admitted that
you are a linen-draper ; and, except the keeping a school, no other
seeular employment exempts a man from serving on Juries.
Applicant—My Lord, I bow to the decision of the Court.
Business was them proceeded with.
TUE RING OE THE PROSECUTION OF LEWIS WILLIAM DECK,
N.P. AGAINST JASIEs CLYDE.
Mr. Erns:lnt opened the case, which he described as an indict.
ment against ale. James Clyde, for having endeavoured, on the
Pith July last, to provoke Lewis William Buck, Esq. to commit a
breach of the peace.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE then pmceeded to state the plaintiff's case.
Ile said—" Please your Lordship and Geotlemen of the Jury, I
have the honour to appear before you as the Counsel for Mr. Buck.
He is a gentlemen well known to you all, aml at present fills the
office of High Sheriff of this county. He thinks it proper, acting
under the advice of his friends, to prosecute this indictment against
Mr. Clyde, for an insult that was offered to him—a most wanton.,
unprovoked, and n ncalled-for agerreseio... Gentlemen, it was deemed
expedient to bring the case into this Court, not altogether from re-
gard to the feelings of Mr. Buck, but because the insult was open,
and inflict:al in the presence of many, and if)not as openly and as
publicly punished it might serve as an encouragement to repeat it.
Theinstritetions which I and my Learned friend Mr. Erskine have
received. as Counsel for Mr. Built, are exactly such as !'should hive
expected to have received from so honourable a client. We are in-
structed to prosecute this indictment in such a manner, and to such an
extent, as will secure Mr. Buck from future aggression and insult.
There is nothing vindictive in the manner in which we are in.
strutted to proceed : Mr. Buck only requires at your hands that his
honour. his person, and his feelings, should he kept safe, and se-
cured from a repetition of insults such as he has received. I
have reason to believe, Gentlemen, that the defendant (Mr. Clyde)
has taken a similar view of this transaction. There are occasions
upon which it may happen to the best and most honourable men
to tail into an error, and conduct himself in a matinee which
should excite apprehension in others, and which lie should after.
wards regret. If Mr. Clyde regrets his conduct, and has instructed
my Learned Friend to avow has regret, I shall be most happy to
hear so front my Learned Friend. With that hope, and in that
expectation, I have anti shall abstain from stating to you, Gentle-
men, any of the dram :stances connected with the present indict-
ment. No gentleman who receives an insult can desire more than
an acknowledgment of the error, and an expression of regret from
the party offending. This is the only atonement which a man of
honour can properly desire to receive, and it is an atonement which
no honourable man should refuse to give.
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS (with whom was Mr. WRIGHT, for the
defendant) then said. " My beamed Friend has truly and elo.
ettently observed that there may be occasions on which an honour-
able man may make concession fur an offence offered, and
may shew that the errors of his conduct resulted solely from the
circumstance of temporary trritation. My Learned Friend has
told you, Gentlemen, that his client, who is the prosecutor in this
indictment, is an honourable man. In that statement I unre-
servedly concur. Mr. Buck is known to you all as a man of ho-
nourable character and high station. My client, Gentlemen, is
also a man of honour, and Is an offices.—l may say a deserving
and I meritorious officer, in his Majesty's Navy. He
has instructed me to state here, that under the impulse of momen-
tsry irritation, he once departed from liis•uaual course of conduct,
and for a moment lost that control which is so desirable for every
man to keep over his passions. My client feels no reluctance in
making this acknowledgment. He has no hesitation in admitting
that he pursued towards Mr. Buck a lint of conduct which no man
can justify. He owes it to himself, as well as to Mr. Buck, the
publicly to avow, as he does through me, that no man in hie calm
moments could pursue the sante conduct. My Learned Fri
truly observed, that to persist in error was as bail, if not worse,ahan
first to fall into it. My client hopes that what I have now said for
qim will be consideredas a full and satisfactory atonement to Mr.
Buck, and for my own pert I have only to say, Ilan extremely
glad that the matter has terminated in this honourable way."
Mr. Serg. Winne.—This concession, Gentlemen, so made by
Counsel for Mr. Clyde. on his be'aalf, is a sufficient security to us,
and on the part of Mr. Buck I do not require you to return any
verdict in this case.
The Jury, which was Special, was then discharged, without
giving any verdict.
From the station of the parties the case excited considerable in-
terest In expectation of it the Court was crowded Isom an early
hour with ladies and gentlemen.

THE,

tRITISH PIMSS.

1.4 W NOTICES.

COURT OP CRANCERY.
isTORIt TIT LORD CSANCuLLOR, IN LINCOLN'S INN RALLY THIS DATA

AT TIN.
Foot tit and last Seal.—Mottoren only.

VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT'.
SETORg Tug VICA-CHANCitt,LOR, IN LINCoLN'T INN, TRU OAT, AT

HALF-PART TEN.
Fourth and last ~eal.—Motions only.

ROLLS COURT. MONDAY, Jr ty 24.
General PetitinffiDny, at the Rolls, to morrow ;Tuesday), at Six in the
Evening.
Petitions must be act down, and Copies left with the Secretary. before
two o'clock. this day.
The Vilowing Is the list of Petitions already set down :
Gray T. Hinitlagfield Bowker v. Skeels Tusaith v. Tusaith
Same v. Same Gyles v.. Oakes I Townshend v. Towns-
Same v. Same Woolley v. Perkins Tend
In re Providing Griffith v. Wynne Eirrworth v. Ilirleman
Brothers Society Wray v. Field Lambert v. Robinson
Holtman v. EVA ogton Dells v. Soldschmldt Constable T. Thorns
Iluddlestone v. Terre- Trepials v. Clinton dyke
west Wood v. Lindsay Ally.-Gen. v. Foster
Sivaine v. Elston Tborold v. Lndlow In lc C Ant
Scott v. Gayner Coates v. Hickson Jaomard v. Styan
Jones v. Shepard In re Wright Andrew., v. Andrews
Proser C. Trusser Grant v. Love Mills v. Fleetwood
Hughes v. Wynne Richard/ v. Maeda,- Cain v. Cain
Cat ter v. Jackson field Montagu v. Montagu
Coppack v. Tennant Gill v. Gill Son•rim v Pedal'
(rood v. Pearce Kyrke v. Barratt Halton v. Price
Creme v. Forster Stanton v. Knight Hutchinson v. Arnett
Irldins v. Myoit Key v. Clattery to re Collett's Charity
Miller V. Elkins CUM a. Palmer Cronsdaile v. Philips
Baker v. Henderson Jones V. Wellington Dc Limit v. Fenwick
Eaparte Graham Hollingworth v. Robin- Stirling a. Venvlll
'••v.-Gen - --der son . In re Greenhill

Adv.-Gen. v. Ty/
Bennett v. Merriman
Donald r. Woodbridge
Colebrook ?. Leigh
Atty.-Gen. v. Jee
Wildgoose v. Arklastall
Gin.aineton V.
Thwnites
Worsham v. Roberti
Pyretic? v. Revett
Francis v. Warr
Freak v. Walters
Garbutt v. 'ripping
Fra•er v. Hartwell
Freeman v. Eborail
Elder v. Eider

Ajar; v. Warren
Same v. Same
Greenland •. Green.
land
Drummond a. Bent-
wick
Joie.A v. loam
F.!irr v. lade?
Huth:lm v. Strathmore
irynmore v. Murky •
llarrl•mn v. Ilarrivon
Edwards v. Gorey
v. Nolong
Milleret v. Mlileret
Cafe T. Child

.......
Burr v Gainrborcueh
Axon v. Gunranau
Wagoner v. Iturnshaw
to re Mayor of London
Atty.-Gen. v. Stewart
Driver v. Chippendale
Plizgera'd v. Field
Blew v. Wiwcheiter
BaltveeV. A ntley
Andrew v. Ellis
Terrenre v. Bulmer
Cronsdalle v. Phillips
Vauneck v. Hunting.

I.XTE I.LIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, SATURDAY, JULY 22.
CRAWSHAY V. COLLINS.—BROWN V. In TASTET.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the minutes proposed by
Mr. Hart, on the part of the plaintiff, in Crawshay P. Collins. re..
(wired to be materially altered, which he would do with his Qwn
hand. and deliver them out on Monday morning; and after he
had done that, he would go on to state what occurred to him in
Brown v. De Tastet, because he was of opinion that these two cases
must go together, though they were very different. •

GOODSON V. ELLISON.
Ilon NE said this case was at the head of the paper to be
spoken to ; he was to speak to it ; but there was an appeal of Rose
v. Manning further ilonn in the paper, which Mr. Hart had ob-
tained the leave of the Court to have put into the paper. lle (Mr.
Home) was quite ready to go on with I;oodson v. Ellison; but if
Mr. Hart did rot get to Rose v. Manning to-day (this being the
last clay of hearing appeals), it was not to he understoixt that Mr.
liorne's clients were to be restrained from proceeding under the de-
cree of the present Master of the Rolls, in the decree appealed from.
The Lout) CHANCELLOR observed, that though what he had
said in Hoodoos v. Ellison might be considered in ooe sense a
judgment. yet lie had left the cue open to be spoken to by any
body who had any thing to say in it. Mr. Horne had said he had
something to observe in it, and if he chose to do that among
the motions, he should be at liberty to do so; and therefore, it Mr.
Hart Were ready, he could go on with Manning v. Rose.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. SATURDAY, JULY 22.
The Court was occupied this int,rning in hearing arguments in
exceptions to the Masters' reports, which involved no public
interest.

NSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT, SATURDAY, JuLv 22.

IN THE HATTER OF I. SMITH, AX INSOLVENT DEBTOR.
The above insolvent, who was a wine-merchant, came up on the
14th instant, when he was beard upon his petition and schedule,
and ordered to be discharged forthwith from the liing's Bench
Prison, but which discharge being informal, owing to a variance
between it and the Copy of Causes; the Marshal refused so liberate
the prisoner.
Mr. CooxE, in moving the Court on the insolvent's behalf,
stated the following facts:—The Learned Gentleman said that the
Court had adjudicated on the insolvent's case several days ago, but
his discharge had been inefficient. owing to a variance between cer-
tain documents. The insolvent first was committed tithe custody
of Mfr. Spencer, the Keeper of the Whitecross.street Prison, from
whence he was removed, by a writ of Habeas Corpus, to the prison
of the King's Bench 1 anti= botlreeses the following persons were
his detaining. creditors, and it was owing to the number and singu-
larity of their names that the present error had originated. The
names to which he alluded were in the Marshal's book, " Manoel
Pedro, Guimarcicus Maria Angelica Moriteiro, and Joss dos
Santos Fonseca." (Laughter.) The Learned Gentleman said he
had two versionsof the names, which were very similar, except
that from the loose manner. in which the letters forming them were
written, the vowels were of doubtful meaning. The Learned Coon-
eel then said, that he 'made this application on the affidavit of Mr.
Holt, the chief clerk to Mr. Jobson, who swore that the names as
above written, were correct.
The Cuter CommisatostEn said, notwithstanding the wonted
regularity of Mr. Hoh. he ( the Commissioner) was not at all sur-
prised that an error should have crept in, either on his part or on
the part of the keepers of the prisons. " I sugpose, said the
Learned Commissioner," that Mr. Holt swears to the identity of
the party."
Mr. COOKE replied in the affirmative, and said that his motion
was that the discharge might be made conformable with the fact as
sworn, and that it issue itutunter. —Leave given.
Charles James Bayley, a young man of respectable appearance,
and a surgeon by profession, was opposed by Mr. Heath, on behalf'
of almost every creditor in the schedule.
The insolvent described himself of ‘Varboys, Huntingdondffee,
and as late in partnership with his father.
Mr. MEATH said, although the insolvent lived in the county of
Hunts, where all his creditors lived, he had thought fit to some up
to London to seek his discharge, a measure which he (Mr. H.) was
instructed to resist. He applied open an affidavit of the creditors'
attorney (as we understood) which set forth that- the insolvent gave
divers bills of exchange and promissory notes, which fell due on
Cr about the 29th of April last; and that, m the interval between
the dates and their arrival at maturity, the insolvent disposed of his
effects, and left that part of the country. He was further instructed
to say, that in order that the ends of justice might be answered, it
wotild be necessari for eight or ten witnesses to be brought up
sixty or seventy miles, which would be very expensive. Bence it
was that Mr. Pepperday and the other creditors were desirous that
the insolvent should be sent down into the county (his natural soil),
in order to be heard there by the Commissioner on the circuit.
The reasonablene-s of this application was strengthened by the
fact, that the insolvent had subtaenaed three witnesses from Hun-
tingdonshire, to whom he had not tendered their expenses; there.
fore it was clear that for his own sake he had better be heard in tte
county. The Learned Gentleman theta moved that the insolvent
be removed by order of the Court from the New Debtor's Prison
to his Majesty s gaol for the county of Huntingdonshire.
Mt. COOKE (the insolvent's Counsel), complained that an ap-
plication had not been made before, so that the insolvent might
have been heard on the late Samtuer Circuit. If the Court granted
the present application, the effect would be that of entailing an ad-
ditional three months' iinprisontuent upon his unfortunate client.
The Court was also aware that the creditors might have sent up at.,
fidavita had they thought proper.
The CHIEF Coal 3115910 N Ea said that he considered it a wise
alteration in the law on the part of the Legislature. As the law
stood, if a man was arrested in the countr and, in order to gain
time to enable him to pay the debt, gave bail to the Sheriff, such a
man was obliged to come up, and render In discharge of the bail,
supposing that a settlement had not been effected. It often hap-
pened, however, that the effect of this removal was to bring a per.
son in the midst of his creditors, the hulk of whom, although he
resided in the country, minted in London ; therefore, in such
' a case, it could not be called a voluntary removal. In the present
instance the case was difkrent, for all the insolvent's creditors live
in the country, and he comes up to London and sets the machinery
of the Court into motion: therefore, on those grounds, he (the
Commissioner) thought the application a reasonable one, and one
with which he ought to comply.
The Insolvent—l wouid rather go down than otherwise, for there
is a foul conspiracy formed against me.
Cuter Commtastostitt— -v glad that
meet with your approbation,
turn out that the creditors 1'

made this application for .
there is a clause in the Act

vent 'a costs.

Icons then ordered that
ten davit, at the expense
order to be of no eßect.

DitEAnit:r.
following account from
chcu, of the Ilth Juue

1•

a
1.
)1,