The Sun.
London, England, 1801-10-06 00:00:00

4DJOURNED SESSIONS AT GUILDH,4LL,

OCTOBER 3.

SEV'ERAT; indi&ments- for misdemeanours were
heard.; but none Of the least importance. 'the
Court proceeded to the discharge of Insolvent Deb-
tors. John .111‘,Neat applied to be discharged, and
opposed under that seftion of 'the Aa Of Parka-
- nieht,. which direCts that persons obtaining. goods
on bills,: under false pretences, shall not be entitled
-to the benefit of the As. He Was a wine-merchant,.
and liacVaPplied to a 'Mr. Bolt, to,khow whether he
wanted any bills discounted, as he had money by.
him, and could conveniently accommodate him. In
consequence of this offer, Mr. Bolt' accepted two
bills -drawn upon him by his Clerk, for tool. each,'
and-gave them to the Prisoner, who promised to
:bring him the money in a' few dayS. He said he
i,vas gong to purchaSe some wine, and that the
.drafts should be taken as cash. Some days passed,
and the money was not forth-coming. The Plaintiff
Was anxious about, the bills, and sent his Clerk to
~inqUire-.concerning them, when •he found, that his
house was shut up,' and he was gone away. In,
• about a. fortnight it was discovered that he was in
'the King's Bench Prison. The Plaintiff sent there
to-him; but could not get, the bills, though he said
- they shoull be gNen up : they were, h,osvever, ne-
gotiated, and Mr. Bolt _.was obliged 't6 take them
up. Upon the part of the Prisoner it, was contend-
' ed, that thefafts cOnstituted nothing rnore-ihan a
-Common debt. On the contrary it was alledged,
that this was completely within the meaning of the
Aft, as the Prisoner had pretended to have the mo-,
• ney himself to discOunt the bills. .
The Cdurt were of opinion, the' pretending to,
have the money to discount the bills, when in faa'
he had it not, was nothing more than what was
praCtised by the generality of bill-brokers. It ap_
pealed, upon the cross-examination'of the witnesses,
-that the Pristmer had informed the Plaintiff of his
• haVing left the bills in the hands of a Mr. Miller,
:and that the Plaintiff was proceeding at law against
him to recover the same. -Upon -these groundS it
_ was considered an -an ordinary debt, and the De-
fendant was-discharged.. .
A person,of the- name of 'Obey was opposed under
the 6th Clause in, the Aa, it being',alledgedthat he
was not in aftual custody. before the ist Of March,
agreeable to the terms specified in the said Clause. It
was proved by .an Officer in the Marshalsea Coup,
-that-he arrested the Defendant, by virtue of a Mar-
shalsea writ, on the 28th of February, and that he took
him to his •lock-up-house, in CFown.--court, Covent_
garden, where he was locked up for the space of ten
minutes; at the expiration of that time, he sinned, a
bail-bond, and the Officer permitted him to_depart,
on his promise that he would return with a substan--
tial person to join in the bond ; he,, however, for-
feited his" word, and did: not return ;fin consequence
of which the writ was renewed,...and he, was again
arrested on the 6th of March, several days subsequent
to the time required by-the clause. The Counsel
for the opposing Creditor contended that the De-
,fendant was not entitled to his discharge, inasmuch
as that he was not in aa;al custody prior to the
6th of March. The Couhsel for the Defendant
submitted, that a caption having
.taken plaCe on
-the zBth of February,- and his client being locked
up for ten minutes, did constitute a legal cus-
tody, and that there was no occasion for a renewal
of the Writ ; the Officer not having acted striftly
conformable to his duty, was liable for an escape,
if, the-Defendant had not been found. The Court
.were clearly of opinion, that the circumstance of
the Defendant having been taken to the Officer's
house, and there locked up, on the .zBth of Febru-
ary, was' a legal custody, and therefore ordered him
to he discharged.