The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-04 00:00:00

—substituting his own notions of right. in 1842, w-hen
he applied to the Insolvent Debtors' Court, the law
took all he had, but left his talents and industry unbur-
dened with debt ; he rejected this advantage and re-
vived debts to the amount of 3,0001., thus wronging him-
self and inflicting a cruel injustice on his future credi-
tors. I say a cruel injustice, because no man has a right
to commence a career which of necessity involves the
incurring new debts whilst burdened with old debts
which he cannot have assets to meet except such as may
be obtained from new creditors. Such a system is, in
fact, 'robbing Peter to pay Paul. He repeated the same
fault in. 1843. He had again obtained from the law that
protection which was necessary to enable him to do jus-
tice to future creditors, yet he procured his own petition
to be dismissed, and thus threw away that protection,
and placed his new creditors again at the mercy of his
old. I hope that he will not do so again. Indeed, if
I thought be would, I would not grant him any certifi-
cate at all, for if I did I should feel I was entrapping
future creditors. It may be difficult to persuade the
world that such conduct is a crime, bui; in my opinion
it}is a commercial crime of a deep die, a crime which
nothing could extenuate, except a warning to each new
creditor, without incurring a new debt, that he had by
his own act made that law, which professed so send him
back into the world of industry a new man owing
nothinri, a mockery and a snare to new creditors. 'I
give Mr. Matthews a first-class certificate with pleasure,
and I hope his future career may be more fortunate in
its pecuniary results than his former exertions have
been,. Of course if, after fulfilling all new obligations,
he at any time found himself in possession of a surplus,
which he could justly divide amongst old creditors, and
his high sense of honour disposed him so to do, to such
a course no exception could be taken.

.
The decision was received with applause.
Mr. Whitmore, the official assignee, reported on the
case as follows :—The plaintiff was the lessee of the
Lyceum Theatre, has been in difficulties since 1838,
when, as lessee of the Olympic Theatre, he incurred a
considerable loss, from the effects of which he has
never recovered. By that loss, and by the loss at
Covent Garden in the year 1842, he became so involved
that in that year he was compelled to petition the Insol-
vent Debtors' Court, in which he got his discharge. He
appears, hoWever, to have renewed immediately afterwards
many of his old debts, for which he gave acceptances,
which, passing into the hands of third parties, the
holders took proceedings upon them as they became
due ; and in 1843 he was again compelled to seek pro-
tection, when he petitioned the Court of Bankruptcy as
an insolvent debtor, under the sth and 6th Vie,, cap.
1] 6. This petition was annuled on the creditors agree-
ing to accept a composition of 6s. Bd. in the pound.
Mr. Mathews, however, was not able to carry that
arrangement entirely into effect, and having already lost
the protection of the Court by the annulling of his peti-
tion, his unsatisfied debts again pressed upon him. In
1851 he petitioned the Court, under the 7th and Bth
Vic., cap. 70, when an investigation was instituted, un-
der the direction of the Court, as to the origin of his
then difficulties, which were ascribed by Mr. Mathews
to his having been induced by the prospects of success,
in which he had been disappointed, to incur a large out-
lay in re-decorating and embellishing the Lyceum Thea-
tre, and by the joint affidavit (filed upon the proceedings
of Mr. Thomas, who prepared the account of Mr.
Mathews, it wiliamount to 9,3301.) Mr. Mathew's pro-
position, under this proceeding, was to the followin:
effect :—That trustees should be appointed, to whom
the profits of the threatre (which, from the great undis-
puted influx of visitors to the Exhibition in 1851, were
expected to reach a large sum) should be paid over for
division among the creditors. Mr. Mathews, however,
in common with other theatrical managers, miscalcu-
lated the effect of that Exhibition upon the theatres, in-
asmuch as, between the date of the petition in April and
the time when the masses began to visit London,, there
was a loss of 2,5601. 10s. id., and the subsequent large
receipts only recompensed this loss, and the profits by the
end of the season were 4701., which was insufficient to
pay the rent of the theatre during the time of its close
from October to Christmas. The subsequent proceed-
ings as to the threatre do not appear to call for any
particular remark except the part to which Mr.
Mathews ascribes his present difficulties, viz., the
Easter of 1853, by which a loss was incurred prior to
the end of the season of 3,2261. The result of it all is,
that since the date of the petition for arrangement in
1851, the deficiency has increased from 17,7271. to
22,4451. ; the increase being accounted for by in-
terim law costs and necessary personal expenses, ex-
ceeding in amount' the profits of the theatre and of
Mr. Mathews's professional engagement. The bank-
rupt has no assets whatever ; neither under the cir-
cumstances ought it to be otherwise, for he has not had
for many years the means of either giving credit or of
accruing property. The furniture of his house was
originally rented, and the subsequent arrangement for
the purchase of it from economical motives was ulti-
mately obtained. The bankrupt has given all the as-
sistance required in the office of the official assignee.
Mr. Mathews, in a printed statement dated Lyceum,
May 5, 1854, has related, the history of his case, the
principal facts of which being vouched are embodied in
this report.

ROYAL ?BEE HOSPITAL.