The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-04 00:00:00

ST->.m OF THE THAMES.

The river, in consequence of the intensity of the
frost and the heavy falls of snow, was blocked up
! yesterday in several places Le-low bridge, and conse-
quently all navigation was stopped for a time, and at
length large vessels ►unore,l It anchor as near the
t-liore as pce-sible, fearful of loin iFo!ated from all
communication, as was the case yesterday morning
with several lightermen and barges, which were so
completely surrounded with ice as to prevent any
assistance being afforded them, although boats were
pat off to convey the crew, if possible, to shore, or
assist them with provisions. In many cases, how-
ever, the boats could not approach the vessels, and
the ice was too fragile to venture upon ; and thus
the crews were hemmed in until the tide flaated
them away. Off the tender ship a hawser has been
stretched from the shore to the vessel, upon which
the passengers are conveyed in a chair suspended
upo❑ pulleys. Should the frost continue, the most
distressing consequences will ensue : already the
applications for relief are beyond ell precedent. The
dock, are nearly frozen up, and all hands are em-
ployed in breaking up large masses of ice, which
are dragged through the lock gates into the Thames,
so as to afford facilities for vessels entering. Above
bridge, particularly on the 'Westminster shore, the
shoals of ce extend nearly half way across the river,
and it is anticipated by those best competent to
judge, that if the frost and falls of snow continue,
the Thames will, at the end of the week, be blocked

up from shore to showe. The Harlequin steam-
boat, with a vessel in tow, going down the river
yesterday, was stopped and surrounded by the ice,
off Rateliff-cross; and another steamer, with a brig
in tow, was compelled to put back.

NSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, FEB. 3.

John Middleton, late a builder at Hertford was
opposed by Mr. HALCOMB, on behalf of Mr. Evan
Roberts.

The insolvent originally came before the Court
on the 18th ult., when it appeared that...he owed
Mr. Roberts, his opposing crAitor, 200/., part of
which consiqed of two dishonoured bills for 110/.
and 117/. 12s. 6d. The first bill was due on the
sth of August, the day previous to which he got a
large quantity of slates, well known to the trade by
the names of duchesses, countesses, and ladies, from
Mr. Roberts, knowing that he could not take up the
bill then coining due, and directly afterwards he
left his home, and came to London. He stated
that he owed a distant relation named James Mega,
3051. for money lent, but his father-in-law had
settled that debt. Jchu Mega, the brother of James
Mega, had arrested the insolvent for 351. due for
deals and battens supplied to the insolvent in 1826
and 1827. He had inserted Jehu Mega's residence
in Prince's street, Lambeth, but the opposing cre-
ditor had made a diligent search all through the
parish of Lambeth, and could find no such person
as Jelin Mega. Ile had also inserted in his schedule
that Jelin Mega's attorney was Mr. Teague, but
that gentleman attended the Court and swore that
he did not know such a person as Jehu Mega, or
the insolvent.

As there appeared some doubt whether there was
any real detaining creditor's debt, no such person
being found, the Court adjroulted the case to pro-
duce him, and also James Mega. . .

To-day the insolvent came up again, when it ap-
peared that no exertion had been made on the part
of the insolvent to produce the detaining creditor;
consequently be was not in Court, although it was
ordered that he should attend. His brother, James
Mega, was, however, present.
James Mega stated that his brother, Jeh❑ Mega,
was now at Weymouth for the benefit of his health,
but, said the witness, " it is a just debt, I can take
my oath." The witness and his brother Jehu had
been in partnership as bricklayers and builders, in
Prince's-street, Lambeth, until 1824. The deals
and battens were, as the witness had heard, sup-
plied by his brother, to the insolvent, in 1824, after
they dissolved partnership.
Cross-examined by Mr. HALcomn—Witness had
no claim now against the insolvent, though he had
lent the insolvent 3051. at various times, from 1824
to 1828. Witness had forgiven the insolvent the
debt.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Were you ever discharged
by this Court ? Witness (after some hesitation)—
es, Sir.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER—I thought so : pray, how
long ago is it ? Witness—Eight or nine months ago.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Did you put this man in
your schedule for a debt of 305/.? Witness—l
did not.

CHIEF CommisstosEn—Don't let us make a
game of this Court.
Witness-1 advanced this money previous to my
going to prison, and I was in prison five years.
Mr. HALcomn—You were in prison five years,
and yet you could lend this man 3051.:'—Witness—
Yes.

Mr. COOKE said there could be no object in pur-
suing this inquiry, as the witness did not now make
arty claim.
The CHIEFCOMMISSIONER observed that whatever
hardship might arise to the insolvent, he had only
to blame himself. The Court was still in the dark
as to whether such a person► as Jehu Mega was in
existence or nor, and there was by no means any
proof of any debt existing, as the Court did not
give the least credit to the testimony of the witness
who had been examined. Looking at the whole of
the case, the Court thought it would be a gross
abuse of the law to allow such a petition and
schedule to stand, and they therefore dismissed the
petition.
Mr. Commissioner LAW expressed himself of the
same opinion.
John Cole, a butcher and cattle-dealer, late of
Birmingham, was opposed by Mr. LIALcomB on be-
half of Mr. John Whythes. The grounds of the
opposition were, that the insolvent had put his op-
posing creditor to an unnecessary expence, by vexa-
tiously defending an actions but the witnesses not
appearing when called, the case was not made out.
The COURT, however, found that in the adver-
tisement inserted in the country paper, au error had
crept in,. which rendered it necessary for the insol-
vent to be remanded to readvertise. The Chief
Commissioner observed that that error was much to

be regretted.
Mr. COOKE, the insolvent's counsel, said the ad-
vertisement, through the neglect of the printer of
the newspaper, had described the insolvent as of

" I)roitwich, in Worcestershire," instead of Droit-
witch, 'Worcester, and Birmingham. He (Mr.
Cooke) very much doubted whether an action would
not stand against the newspaper for errors like these,
by which the insolvents were in prison much longer
than necessary.
The COURT also thought that an action would
lie, under these circumstances, for it was ♦ery gross
neglect..

The insolvent was then necessarily remanded, to
allow him to re-advertise, properly describing
himself.

The linen trade has lately experienced a
marked improvement, and very large shipments have been
made for London and Alanchester. —Dub. Morn. Register.

COLMAN'S RANDOM RECORDS.—Among
the numerous distinguished persons that figure in this
work, will be found—GEORGE 111.--The Margravine of
ANsrAcn—The late Duke of YORK— JOHN SHEFFIELD,
Duke of Buckingham—Lord NORTH—Marquis of WEL-
LYSLEY—The late Lord GEORGE GORDON—Duchess of
KINGSTON—Lord EasKlNE—Lord KELLIE—Sir THOMAS
Mitt.s—Lord COLCHESTER (afterwards Speaker of the
louse of Commons)--WILLIAM PULTENEY, Earl of
Bath—Captain PHIPPS (afterwards Lord BluLcuAvE)—
The late Sir WATKIN WILLIAMS WYNN—Sir JOSEPH
BANKEs—Sir CHARLES URN B. SIIERIDAN
3 FKY I.L--VINCENT BOURNE-Dr. JOHNSONGIBRON
Dr. GoLnslutrn—BoswELL—CALEß WHITEFOORD
DIS. BUSBY, FOUNTAIN, SMITH, VINCENT, &C.—GAR-
RICK, FOOTE, POWELL, HENDERSON, Miss FA RREN,
JOHN PALMER, CHARLES BANNISTER, PARSONS, BENS.
LEY, &C. &C.