The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-13 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. 12.

William Rodney Chambers, Esq., was opposed by Mr.
POLLOCK, on behalf of Messrs. Galway and Son, and several
other creditors, principally resident in Ireland.
It appeared from the insolvent's petition, that during the
time the debts on his schedule were contracted be had been at-
tached to the army, and resided at a number of places. The
petition stated hint to have been formerly of Hyde-park barracks,
and of Spain and Portugal, Lieutenant in the first regiment of
Life Guards, then of the city of Paris, gentleman ; of Oxford-
street, Cornet in the 23d Regiment of Light Dragoons, on half-
pay ; of New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land, Cornet
in the 11th ; and of Crown-street, Westminster, Cornet in the
2lst Regiment of Light Dragoons.
Mr. Comm (who held Mr. Pollock's brief) stated, that it
was not the intention of the creditors to have the insolvent ex-
amined before the . Court on the present occasion ; he (Mr.
Cooke) was, therefore, instructed to apply to the Court to hare
die case referred for investigation before the Provincial As-
signee, at his chambers, in order for that gentleman to report
upon the matters contained in the schedule, on such day as the
Court might be pleased to order.
The Court granted the application, and ordered the insolvent
to be brought up again on the 20th instant.
The Rev. Henry Lloyd, Doctor of Divinity, and Regius
Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, was op-
posed by a person named Jolly, who claimed to be a creditor
for 691. is. 10d.

The opposing creditor stated that he was a compositor; and
kept a boarding-house in Bride-lane, Fleet-street. In the
early part of February last the insolvent and his daughter came
to his house, and engaged apartments at one guinea a week,
including attendance, beyond' which they were to pay for their
board ad valorem, at so much per diem.—(A laugh.)—The
insolvent informed witness that he enjoyed the living of Da-
venham, and received an emolument from his Professorship
at Cambridge, beyond which, witness was given to under_
stand that he received 40/. a-year" from the Lords of the Ad-
miralty for sacerdotal duties. At the first the insolvent paid
regularly, but in the course of a little time he apologized that
he could not pay until he received some money from the Ac-
countant-General, which had been decreed to him by the Court
of Chancery. This, coupled with the former representations,
induced the witness to extend his credit. When he became
pressing for money, the insolvent gave hint two bills for 151.
each ; but on the evening before the first became due, he sent a
note, stating that he was going to surrender to the Fleet prison.
Cross-examined by Mr. H EATH. —Has not got the bill of
particulars against the insolvent ; but the aggregate was the
sum of 881. 6s. 10d. ; off which the insolvent had paid M.
beyond the two bills before alluded to, upon which some of
the insolvent's friends had paid 251.; so that, -altogether, he
had received 53/. The reason why he still claimed 591. 7s. Hid.
was, because he understood the 25/. was given as a douceur
for the trouble he had been put to, in consequence of the in-
solvent's irregularity.
The COURT expressed its surprise that such an idea should
have rested in the mind of the complainant, fbr it was evidently
a payment in liquidation.
The insolvent denied that he ever made the representation
attributed to him, relative to the living and professorship, for it
was notorious that they had.been both seqUestered several years
ago. With respect to the Chancery property, a decree had
been made that his daughter should have 1,500/. and upwards,
and the Court for some time past had allowed her 601. a year
for her support. The insolvent declared that he had no power
or controul over the property.
The evidence having been gone Through, Mr. HEATH sub-
mitted to the Court, that no case had been made out against
the Rev. Petitioner, to induce it to remand him; for by the
complainant's own showing, he had given credit upon repre-
sentations made, and dwelt upon a paper winch he had pro-
duced, which instead of being a proof 'of property, was a proof
of poverty, for it was a humble petition to the Lords of the
Admiralty for a chaplaincy of 40/. a year. .
Mr. Commissioner BowE-f•.l said that he did not see that Mr.
Jolley had adduced evidence sufficiently strong to warrant the ,
Court to detain the petitioner; nevertheless, it appeared neces-
sary that some information should be given relative to the
Chancery property, because it might turn out that the insolvent
had a life interest in it.

The insolvent was then remanded, in order to file the parti-
culars relative to the Lord Chancellor's decree, after which the
Court will pronounce him discharged.