The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

NSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, AUGUST 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Law.)

JUDGMENT.-IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD DUNN.
This insolvent who was opposed on the part of Miss
Burdett Coutts, appeared to receive the judgment of the
Court.
Mr. Commissioner Law-asked the insolvent whether
he wished to be sworn to his schedule in its then
state ?

shTeehte. Insolvent said there was only the general balance-.

Mr. Commissioner Law told him that that document
was not sworn to.
The Insolvent said, that as such was the case he would
swear to the schedule as it was.
The documents put in in evidence on the part of the op-
position and by the insolvent were handed by the officer
of the court to the parties, and the insolvent was sworn
to his schedule and executed the usual warrant of at-
torney.
Mr. Commissioner Law proceeded to deliver the judg-
ment of the Court. The insolvent, Mr. Dunn, was in
custody on a ca sa. for costa arising in an action in
which he did not proceed to trial. He had complained
of the costs, and the manner in which judgment had been
issued against him ; but he (Mr. Commissioner Law)
found no irregularity, and besides, they related to mat-
ters out of his jurisdiction. The learned counsel (Mr.
Cooke) for the opposition asked the Court to deal with
the case for a debt improperly contractsd under the 78th
section of the act. That section spoke of debts con-
tracted under false pretences, fraudulently, by means
of a breach of trust, and without reasonable or pro-
bable expectation of payment. The first question was
could it be a debt fraudulently contracted for costs in
an action ? The case of an insolvent named Wolsey
had been mentionckd Vjle_ unseL as one.
p-oiht. -rn'r-tria CaieThe the commissioner) had com-
mented on the expression " debt incurred," and
the same question had previously arisen in cases
of persons who, coming a second time within five
years, were, as the law then stood, obliged to show
that they bad unnecessarily incurred debts. There was
a case of that description where a plaintiff had incurred
costs in contesting a bankruptcy, and the question was,
had he incurred a debt? It was held, however, that
one who had originated a question, and was in prison
for costs, must be deemed to have contracted a debt.
He might also mention the case of one Jacobs, who had
brought some qui tam action for penalties, and he failed.
The Court had held that a debt had been incurred with-
out reasonable or probable expectations of payment.
There was also the case of Gomm, heard much earlier
by the Court, in which the question as to costs being a
debt was discussed, and there it was held that to incur
a debt did not import bargain or agreement, but any
matter in which a party got himself into debt. He (Mr.
Commissioner Law) should follow, in the present case,
the principle laid down in those he had cited, and
should consider that Mr. Dunn had contracted the debt
for the costs on which he was now in custody. The
question was on what did his claim rest ? Was it on a
false pretence ? It rested on an authority, as it was
called, which he received on the 3d December, 1844,
when he had been in prison for three years ; he had
stated that he had first objected to receive the letter,
which came by the post (which contained the authority)
and pay the twopence. The postman, however, said
that he had better take it, as it came from a lady, and
there were three small seals on it. The authority was
in verse, containing several stanzas, and signed " A B C."
The words on which the insolvent had drawn the draft
for 100,0001., 18 months afterwards, were—
" Send to Contts your bill, there's lots in the till,
I'll give the clerk order to do it:'
And also the words _

" Fill a good round sum in, as I've plenty of tin
To make you a fair compensation."
In that poetical effusion Mr. Dunn was addressed as a
" dear pet," a " lover," and as a " jewel." At this
time the insolvent had been amerced in law costs, and
was in custody at the suit of Mr. Alexander, a friend of
Miss Coutts. However, it was alleged, notwithstanding
that fact, that it was supposed that the lady had grown
tender, and had sent him the poem. It would in his
(the commissioner's) opinion be an insult to common
sense to consider for a moment whether Miss Coutts had
ever written that authority. The question was, did the
insolvent believe when he brought the action that she
had written it ? The insolvent had never been in her
company except in a court of justice—had never heard
the sound of her voice except in a court of justice, and
had never seen her write except in a court of justice.
Never had he had any communication with that lady, or
a word of her writing, and she had wisely left everything
in the hands of her friends and her solicitor. In the
year 1838 the insolvent addressed letters to her—a most
impertinent and improper proceeding ; and when she
went to Harrogate in that year, he went down, to her
great annoyance. Mr. Marjoribanks was sent for, and
he was committed to prison. Afterwards he annoyed
her in London, and she kept the police in her house.
Mr. Dunn was committed by the justices in London,
and afterwards discharged by the Court of Queen's Bench.
In 1840 Mr. Dunn was one day given in charge by Mr.
He during
a ssutohi t.
that period
received
i He
edv
hp
e Alexander. He sued that gentleman, and in May,
1841, being in prison, he was detained for 801. 18s. costs
at his
remainedloeti wroteea i in
custodylettersaddresses,
anduat to 0t
wltBoh4es poems
ea
lady.mnd
written by him had been produced.
The Insolvent interrupted the learned commissioner,
saying only one.
Mr. Cooke said there were two.
Mr. Commissioner Law observed there was the
" Vision " and another. One was admitted, and the
other was in his hand-writing. The letters contained
three principal points written by the insolvent while he
was in prison. One for his discharge, another applica-
tion for money, and the third was his affections.
The Insolvent (interrupting) said he had never made
an application for money until she had sent him a letter,
in which she spoke of money as a compensation. It must
not be represented that he had attempted to extort
money.
Mr. Commissioner Law proceeded with the delivery of
the judgment, remarking that he was not going to say
that it was the leading topic of the letters. In De cem
ber, 1844, was a letter he had written, prompted, it was
alleged, by the receipt of the letter containing the autho-
rity, and it might be the only letter in which money
ex-
was
mentioned (Mr. Cooke said there were three). That
travagantly absurd effusion stated that 5001. and 6001.
would be sufficient, and asked to draw on a clerk of the
bank ; and the other letter was, that he should appeal
to the Court of Bankruptcy. In April, 1845, Mr. Dunn
obtained his discharge from that court, which he might
have asked for in 1841, and only Lad himself to blame
found, that
for remaining so long in prison. They nextt
on the
in 1846 he expressed his determination to ac 1844. He
power contained in the stanzas he received in
had not mentioned that authority
his
schedule
1 d filed
in
outed the
the Court of Bankruptcy, because he then
846,b
finding
validity of the instrument. In January,
many ancient Royal charters in verses were
held to be
•
valid, be thought he would apply to the till at t 49 , Strand '
ush it
he wrote to the bank that he did not wish
o tcer_
it
on
,
but he filled a good round sum in, and presen d
the 4th March, 1846. Not receiving the 100,0001. on
the 31st March, he made his affichvit in bankruptcy
to obtain a summons against the lady, as trader-
debtor, and on that affidavit he was tried before Lor
on d
Denman, in February, 1847, for perjury, an d being c-
victed be was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment,
li
and to find sureties for two years ; he was not released
till August, 1850. The next act was the one which had
brought him before the court. On the 25th November,
1851, Mr. Dunn brought his action to enforce his claim
of 100,0001., founded on the bill he had drawn by the
authority. He (the commissioner) bad to consider
whether that proceeding was a false pretence, or had he
at any time a belief in the authority on which he brought
the action. He (the commissioner) had looked into the
evidence, and could discover no fragEnent of fact or of a
circumstance that could give him that belief. It was
possible that a perseverance in wrong might induce a
person to believe that lie had some pretence, but he
could not make that excuse in this case, and there was
no evidence that he had.
The Insolvent again interrupted, saying he had acted
bona fide on the authority. He said it was her hand-
writing, and he could prove it. He could have asked
Master Bunce and other gentlemen when the proper