The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--Tan. 14.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
IN RP GEORGE CUMMINS—BREACH O➢' PROMISE OP
MAMUAGB.
This insolvent, lately a farmer at Moulden Hall, near
Richmond, in Yorkshire, who bad been arrested in Lon-
don, applied to be discharged.
Mr. Pollock opposed for the detaining creditor, a
young woman named Diana Corner ; and Mr. Sargood
supported. Mr. Dows• was for Mr. Sanderson, the
landlord of the insolvent's farm, and claimed possession
before the discharge.
The case was called on in the early part of the morn-
ing, and was disposed of by the learned Commissioner
saying ithere would be a conditional discharge on pos-
session on the farm being certified to have been given
to Mr. Sanderson.

Immediately afterwards the attorney, who had come
from Richmond, on the part of Diana Corner, informed
the Court that Mr. C. Pollock was instructed to oppose,
but could not attend till 12 o'clock.
The application to postpone the case was resisted by
Mr. Sargood, but
The learned Commissioner thought that it was a mat-
ter of courtesy to the bar which he could not refuse.
Mr. Pollock snbsequently arrived, and expressed his
acknowledgments to the Court for the kindness ex-
tended to him.

The case was then heard on the complaint of the de-
taining creditor.
It appeared that the insolvent wal a farmer near
Richmond. An action was brought against him by
Diana Corner for breach of promise of marriage, in which
judgment was allowed by default. The jury assessed
the damages at 350/. The action was commenced in
March last year, and the assessment of damages took
place in August. Ii the previous February the insol-
vent made two assignments of his property to his brother
and sister, for money advanced in 1842. He had made
a bill of sale to a person nomed Hayward, and his land-
lord had levied a distress. The allegation was, on the
part of the opposition, that the insolvent had got rid of
all his property to his relations to prevent Diana Corner
from getting paid any damages and costs she might re-
cover. He was now a married man. It transpired in
the course of the case that Diana Corner had given birth
to a child of which the insolvent was the father, and
there had been an order of affiliation made against him.
In his schedule he alleged that an offer of 1501. had
been made on account of the trial, but it was denied,
and the only offer admitted was one of 60/. After the
disposition of all the property, the insolvent came to
London, and having been arrested at the instance of
Diana Corner, he petitioned this court.
Mr. Pollock prayed a judgment for the damages
awarded for a serious injury committed, coupled as it
was in this case with seduction. It was quite clear
that the insolvent had determined, by his conduct in
disposing of his property, to get rid of all he possessed,
and it would be for the court to apportion the punish.
ment his conduct deserved.

Mr. Sargood admitted— there must be an adverse
judgment for the damages, but contended that there
could be no making away with property, as Diana Cor-
ner was not a crediton when the property was parted
with to the insolvent's relations.
Mr. Commissioner Murphy, in giving judgment, re-
marked that it was the practice of the court, in cases of
breach of promise of marriage, to be bound by the record,
and to take the measure of damages as the criterion of
remand. He should do so in this case, and had a right
to refer to the schedule to inform his mind in arriving
at a conclusion as to the judgment he should pronounce.
By the schedule he found that there had been an order
of affiliation, so that in addition to the breach of pro-
mise of marriage, the young woman had given birth to
a child. This was a circumstance which bad come to
his knowledge, and which he was bound to consider. It
was quite clear that the property had been disposed of,
but it had been urged that Diana Corner was not a cre-
ditor at the time. Without allowing that matter to in-
' fluence him he considered it was his duty, for the injury
inflicted, to give a judgment to a serious extent. The
insolvent had been in prison some little time, and be
should give a judgment of 14 months for the breach of
promise of marriage.
Ths formal delivery of the judgment was deferred ,
until the insolvent had given up possession of the farm
to Mr, Sanderson,