The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-05 00:00:00

This insolvent, who had been member of Parliament for
Ipswich, and subsequently for Beverley, in Yorkshire, applied
to be discharged under the act.
Mr. Nichols opposed, on the part of Messrs. Swann and
Clough, bankers, at York ; and Mr. Macnamara appeared on
the part of Messrs. Hedges and Butler, Italian warehousemen,
Regent-street. Mr. Sargood supported the application.
The schedule filed by the insolvent contains 175 creditors,
and no debtors. The debts from 1840 are 168,803/. 17s. Id.,
and 'of that sum 36,7491.155. are without consideration. The
unsecured debts are about 28,0001. The insolvency is attri-
buted to Mr. Fox, who is brother-in-law of the Duke of Leeds,
having granted annuities upon his life interest, under the
will of the late Duke of Leeds, at a rate greater than the ad-
vances would afford ; to heavy interest and discount ; to the
expense of his establishment, and to heavy electioneering
expenses. It appears that from 1840 to 1850 the income
derived from the life interest under the will mentioned and
his marriage settlement was 14,860/. a-year. The property
was now heavily charged, Among the items of expenditure
is one of 7,000/. on account of two contested elections for
Beverley, besides which other expenses were incurred in
elections for Ipswieh end Beverley. The interest on money
borrowed, and on the dis,:ount of bills of exchange, had been
about 1,8001. a•year. In the description the establishment
in St. James-square was stated, and it was also set forth that
Mr. Fox had been member of Parliament for Ipfiwich and
Beverley. A creditor had filed a petition, and the vesting
order was issued in June. Mr. Fox had been iu the Queen's
Prison since March, 1853.
Some inquiry was made respecting the banker's books from
Messrs. Dixon of Chancery-lane, and it was stated that they

had been mislaid.
The insolvent, on his examination by Mr. Nichols, stated
that he recollected having from Messrs. Swan 3501. It might
have been in 1849, but he thought it was earlier, probably in
1847.
Mr. Nichols said he had an affidavit of Mr. Clough, one of
the partners, showing that it was in 1849.
The Chief Commissioner said the document had better be
read, if it was not objected to by Mr. Sargood as inadmissible.
Mr. Sargood waived any objection he might take to its be-
ing read.
The affidavit of Mr. Clough stated that they were creditors
to 1,5001., and that 3641. was now due. In Jan., 1849, the
insolvent asked them for 3501., as he had to pay ito the Bank
of England to the credit of one Moss Davies, and he could not
draw on his bankers, Messrs. Dixon, as he never did without
giving them ten days' notice. The amount was forwarded.
and was nowdue to Messrs. Swan. Mr. Clough expressed his
belief that the insolvent knew he had no effects, and that the
draft would not be honoured.
The insolvent further stated, on his examination, that he had
had
frequent
lived in sturrarnesacy.sttivoens
ez,wianthd
wtsswrsha. Swann. Mr.
liMedra. Moss Da-
vies
lender." He owed the money for advances. He drew on his
bankers some time at sight, and some time at three and six
disappointedhe ethhearidnatnhye
peoplefundsw receipter of money. When he was disa p -
months. He supposed the sum was not paid because he was
er
pwo i
tthehatscowuhldennhote sa
ob-
tained the 3501. of Messrs. Sienwaisaahninsp.bapOonkinntetehrles. 3d of February the
cheque he gave was presented, and there was nothing tor meet
it. He had anticipated funds as the time. The account with
Messrs. Dixon, his bankers, was not closed, as he owed them
7,00/. In 1847, his affairs were complicated, and in 1848
he broke up his establishment, and endeavoured to retrench.
The money he had from Masers. Swann to pay Moss Davies
was not owing on a gaiabling transaction—not on a " play"
debt.
The Chief Commissioner observed that Moss Davies was
still a creditor on the schedule.
Mr. Nichols submitted that the debt of 3501. with Messrs.
Swann had been unfairly contracted, and that Mr. Fox knew
at the time that there would be no effects to meet his cheque.
It was incumbent on the gentleman before before the Court to
show that he was justified in giving the cheque, and in the
absence of such evidence it was an unfair and improper
transaction, as no portion of the money so obtained had been
repaid. He would call a witness to show the character of
the debt.
A clerk to Messrs. Ridsdale and Craddock, the agents to
the attorneys for Messrs. Swann, was called. He produced
the judgment paper in the action against the insolvent. The
judgment was for 1,5801., and 71. 17s. taxed costs.
Mr. Sargood, in reply to the complaint of his learned friend,
contended that there was no evidence to warrant the remarks
made. It was a simple debt transaction, and Mr. Fox had
disclosed his circumstances when he asked for the advance ;
that was no misstatement. Besides, Messrs. Swann had ob-
tained a judgment for 1,5001. and upwards, and were now
creditors for only 3601.
The Chief Commissoner said it was clear that the sum now
due was part of a larger amount, and all that was due with
costs and interest was 3601., so that it was by no means
certain that no portion of the advance complained of had
been paid. There must have been efforts made to pay off
the debt, as only 3601. was due of 1,5871. He could not say
that the deed was one of the character described by Mr.
Nichols.

Mr. Macnamara proceeded with his oppoSition.
The insolvent stated that he dealt, from he believed before

1843 to 1848, with Messrs. Hedges and Butler. They were
wine-merchants and Italian warehousmen, in Regent-street.
The debt was 6891., and was a balance of account. He must
have paid them 2001. or 3001. a year from 1838, but
not, he believed, from 1843, when the present debt probably
commenced.

The insolvent further stated, on his examination, that the
debt he now owed Hedges and Butler was for goods in their
trade. In June, 1847, he gave them a bill of exchange for
5311., at six mouths. Ho was a member of Parliament from
1843 to 1848. He had been embarrassed in his affairs for some
years. He had to raise money, but did not find himself in dif-
ficulties before 1847. He broke up his establishment in 1848,
but he anticipated. money, and still anticipated funds, but his
creditors would not give him time, but shut him up in prison.
His income was the produce of laud, &c. He had a life in-
terest, under the will of the late Duke of Leeds. He did not
live within his income The fact was, he lived beyond it, and
got into debt. That was the source of all his difficulties. He
did not know that it would take 90,0001. to pay off all the
hieumbrances on the property. There were certain monies
which he had raised at 10 and 15 per cent. The last sum he
obtained was at 10 per cent., and had it not been for circum-
stances, he would have been able to pay it. His income was
about 15,0001. a year, which, after deductions, left• about
9,3471.

The report famished by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis to the
creditors was then read.
In December last there was a meeting of creditors, and a
committee was appointed, who made a report, Mr. Dixon,
the banker, being chairman. There was to be an assignment
made by Mr. Fox, of all his property, if the judgment credi-
tors would raleaso his person; but as that was not done, the
matter went off, and Mr. Fox was obliged to come to this
Court. Some 60 creditors attended, and about 40 sent
letters.
The report of the committee was read by the registrar of
the Court. It set forth that Mr. Fox, under the will of the
late Duke of Leeds, is tenant for life of large estates, in-
cluding a house in St. James's-square, and under his mar-
riage settlement he hae a life estate in certain funded pro-
perty, producing together the following income, viz.:—
From farm and other properties in the county £12,824 6 9
From the house in St. James's-square B5O 0 0
From the funded property 1,434 12 2

To which it is considered may safely be added
for coal royalties the further annual income
of

.£15,109 5 11

2,000 0 0

L 17,100 5 11

The committee found that the permanent charge on this in-
come, paramount to the &aims of Mr. Fox and his second credi-
tors, were—

Dowager Duchess of Leeds, now in her 77th year £1,359 3 4
Interest on mortgages created by the late Duke

of Leeds

2,981 1 1
163 0 7
255 0 0
1,000 0 0

Rent charges
Agent's salary
Repairs and sundries __ _

The sum, after June, would by reduced by pay-

ing off a mortgage, leaving a permanent an-
nual charge of 5,180 12 0
The net income payable to Mr. Fox, subject to
11,923 13 11
his incumbrances
Three suggestions were made, but they came to nothing,
and Mr. Fox applied to the Court. One of the suggestions
was (approved of by the creditors) that Mr. Fox, with the
co-operation of Mr. Saekville George Fox, his eldest son, and.
the next tenant of life under the Duke's will, would raise on
their successive life interests a sum of 10,0001., by means of
which a composition of 6s. Bd. in the pound would be paid to
the unsecured creditors in satisfaction of their claims. A.
communication on the subject had been made to Mr. Sack-
vine George Fox, but no positive reply at the date of the
report had been made.
Mr. Lewis informed the Court that yesterday a communica-
tion had been received that Mr. Sackville George Fox would
agree to the suggestion, and the creditors would probably be
paid the composition.
Mr. AfaC asked that the case might be adjourned, in
order that the proposition mentioned should be carried out.
The Chief Commissioner said that at all events they would
go on with the opposition.
Mr. Macnamara addressed the court. He appeared for two
respectable tradesmen, who were creditors for goods supplied
to 6391. The insolvent possessed a very large income—ample
enough for every luxury, but it would appear that he had ex-
hausted it, and then incurred fresh debts. Ho had squan-
deredtparnodtercet relied on
from his privileges as a member
it away, and lived on the new debts he went on con-
tdeobftPsawrliitah-
m raccuttintgo,arrest, to incur he
impugnity.

The insolvent, interrupting, said, " I beg your pardon!'
Mr. Macnamara said there could be no doubt he was pro-
tected from arreet. Ho contended that the insolvent had
been guilty of great extravagance, and was not entitled to pass
without a judgment for contracting a debt without a reason-
able or probable expectation of payment. In addition, ho
would submit to the court that the case was one for its direr°.
tion, in order to check the expenditure of persons in his posi-
tion, and to protect tradesmen from losing their money, in
this case to a considerable extent.
Mr. Sargood replied.
The Chief Commissioner gave judgment.—On cases of the
description now before the court, one might comment on its
circumstances for the whole day. It was, no doubt, a very
painful subject to see a comfortable property wrecked by ex-
travagance. The only matter he had to deal with was to say
whether after an imprisonment of already 14 months, the ad-
judication was to be a discharge or a judgment. The court,
as the petition was about twelve months old, had no discre-
tion as they would have had in a fresh case. Only two
credi-
tors had opposed—one had been disposed of. It would be
monstrous to visit the insolvent with a judgmentiindaserswucash
circumstances. As to the second opposition, the e e
simply put before the court as one of extras-t:frill
(the Chief Commissioner), after au imprisonmentid he had dealt
was asked not to discharge him. Mr. Fox extravagance,
77200/. to 3007. a
of the creditor.
with one of the parties before, and paid hai
year, and there was no evidence on the
and credit went on,
But in 1847 a bill was given for 5
pHeresa(ntheev,C,eorme Commis-
sst
ve
ioner) an Italian warehouse
whens
ione r )t couldeym u only say yktnhoar
m
prised at the credit given. Hereoi his
eposition.
sobered. ,
giving credit to 6001. and upwards, and there was a
atnhde
npoatr
onees.
of them
come to the court to say what had induced them to go on.
There were credi-
tors
rOl It showed what an amount
in the schedule for nearly ./ •
fishmonger
went on trust
of dealings there hinad,
thebe insolvent,
large debts in the schedule, but it seemed to him
between
that tradesmen must have known that he was embarrassed,
and yet went on giving him credit. How could he then say
it
not a case for a discharge? There was really no evi-
dence before him on which he could act otherwise than to
pronounce a discharge.
In reply to the Commissioner,
Mr. Lewis said all sources of income by Mr. Fox had been
entirely dried up.
At the latter part of the day the insolvent was declared
entitled to the benefit of the act, and ordered to be discharged
forthwith.
lie was accordingly clitycharpd.