The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-02 00:00:00

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, TUESDAY, Aucs. 1.

MORIBET D. WHITE. 1
This was a petition praying to be allowed to take a sum of
money otO of the Court, which had been lodged there in the year
1774. A bill had been tiled in that year to foreclose a morgage,
when the money was paid into Court ; shortly after the mortgagee
went to sea, and was not since heard of ; administration of his ef-
fects was granted to his next of kin in the Prerogative Court, on a
presumption of his death after an absence of 31 years; the kin at
law of the mortgagee sold the mortgaged premiseß, and the pur-
chasers had no objection that the prayer of the petition should be
granted—he hoped, under those circumstances, hie honour would
i allow the representation of the mortgagee to take the money out or

Court.
The VICE-Ctrawczt.i.on—As the representatives of the !mort-
gagee have no objection, I don't see why the application should
not be granted.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, TUESDAY, At°. 1.
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Mr. HEATH showed cause against a rule niri, obtained upon
the affidavit of an insolvent named George (Ire, for the purpose
insolvent
should rescinding an order made in August last, that the
should pay 101. a year out of his salary as an Excise Officer. The
Learned Counsel said, that though the affidavit of the insolvent was
correct in some parts, yet it could not be supported in others, as he
had affidavits made on the other aide, contradicting some material
ststement in Gee's affidavit. The facts were, that the insolvent
was discharged in August last by this Court, and ordered to pay
ten pounds a-year in liquidation of his debts, out of his salary of ,
one hundred and ten pounds, which lie received as excise officer; I
but when called upon by the assignee for a dividend, he set the I
order at defiance, and refused to pay it. The insolvent had sworn
that he had a wife and seven children, who depent_al entirely on
him for their subaistance; but lie (Mr. Heath) would produce three
affidavits, stating, that three of the children were in respectable
employments, whereby they supported themselves. He would
mention another circumstance which could not operate in favour
of the insolvent; since his discharge he had paid an old debt by ;
the way of a preference, which he had no nght to do. If he ,
was honestly disposed, he would have complied with the order of
the Court. and with the conditions upon which he had obtained
his liberty. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Court wouid
discharge the rule.
Mr. CooxE replied at considerable length.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER Said that it was of the utmost
Importance that insolvents should know, that when they received
their discharge from this Court, they were bound to comply with
the conditions attending it, or satisfy the Court of their inabi-
lity to do so. No reasonable cause. had been shown in this in-
stance, why the order should be suspended ; therefore the rule
must he discharged. The assignee in this case itad acted in a
laudable manner. If all assignees were so strict in the discharge
of their duty, the orders of this Court would not he trifled with,
as they generally arc, and creditors would benefit considerably
thereby.