The Sun.
London, England, 1822-01-25 00:00:00

[BRITISII PRESS.]

The-Madrid Papers which arrived yesterday
fully confirm the accounts which we had pre-
viously givon respecting the consent of the King
of Spain to remove from the Cabinet the ob-
noxious Ministers. The King, in officially noti-
fying his intentions in The Gazette,says," I have
hiterto declined to accept the resignation of these
Ministers, but considering the present circum-
stances, I now allow them to retire, declaring that
I am satisfied with their good services, their at-
tachment to the Constitution, their loyalty to my
person, and their zeal for the public good." These
expressions are very remarkable ; they shew how
reluctantly the King; has conceded to the wishes of
the Cortes, and the body of the nation, and throw
an ill grace over a circumstance which ought to
have been made the bond of renewed harmony and
confidence. The praises bestowed upon these
Ministers are extravagantly high ; the qualities
ascribed to them complete a picture of perfec-
tion which the most ingenious writers upon ima-
ginary forms of Government would have found
it impossible to surpass: Every word of this
proVes the bitter and abject necessity to which
his Majesty must have felt himself to be reduced,
but his avowal of so great a humiliation was
neither dignified nor judicious. He might have
mourned his loss in secret, but he was ill-advised
to hold himself out to the country as desiring to
maintain any Ministers upon ,whom the People
and the Representatives of the People bad fixed
their seal of reprobation. So closes the first
contest between the King of Spain and his
People since, the restoraton of the Consti-
tution of the Cortes, and the circumstances
attending the contest are not of a nature to en-
courage the King to. any further trials of strength.
His Majesty displayed obstinacy rather than
firmness, for he merely resisted the wishes of the
people without having made any efforts to check
the licentiousness of those who venture to speak
of their conditional allegiance. His was a nega-
tive or passive virtue ; but the genius of the
Spanish Constitution will ever require from the
King an immediate concession, or a vigorous and
active resistance. We never admired the theory
upon which it is built, although it is impossible
not to feel that with all its faults and imperfec-
tions it is better—far better than the brutalizing
system of despotic power which it has superseded.

TIMES.
A Spanish Mail arrived yesterday, and brought
papers and letters from Madrid to the 11th inst.
The most important part of the intelligence thus
received—namely, the dismissal of the Ministry
1-was anticipated in our paper of Wednesday
last. The King, it appears, consented to this
measure with great reluctance. His Majesty is
,represented to have said, " I have hitherto de-
clined to accept this resignation, but, consider-
ing the present circumstances, I now allow these
Ministers to retire, declaring, however, that I am
satisfied with their good services, their attach-
ment to the Constitution, their loyalty to my
person, and their zeal for the public welfare."
An inquiry into the conduct of these unpopular
Ministers will probably be one of the first
objects to which the attention of the next
Cortes will be directed. A private letter
which we have received informs us, that one.
of the Madrid Journals, in alluding to this
subject, obser%es—" The Ministers are only
suspended from their functions until the ap-
proaching meeting of the ordinary Cortes,
which is the period at which they must render
an account of their transactions. In fact, a total
discharge might have relieved -them from their
responsibility, to which they will be more closely
held by a mere suspension. The next Cortes will
not be disposed to spare them ; and we are fond
to believe that ministerial responsibility will not
be found altogether illusory in Spain."—The
Cortes is proceeding in the enactment of a penal
code. One article subjects to a fine of from 15
to 150 dollars, and from three months to one
year's imprisonment, any person convicted of
libel on the Constitution, whether by invective
or satire ; but it is added—" If this offence
should be committed by a Public Functionary,
or by an Ecclesiastic, regular or secular, exer-
cising his ministry, the fine shall be doubled,
with an imprisonment of from eight months to
three years."—The Territorial Audiencia of New
Castile has sentenced John Anderson, a native
of Dublin, to one year's imprisonment and ex-
pulsion from Spain, for being engaged in a con-
Tinley against the Constitutional System of
Government.

[moittiiNG nr.n.tr.o.]
It would appear that the public have not yet
done with the scandalous notoriety which has at-
tached to the domestic affairs of a Mr. Loveday,
an Englishman residing in Paris. We have al-
ready inserted this Gentleman's petition to the
French Deputies complaining of the conversion
of his daughter to the communion of the Church
of Rome—accompanied with such rema'ks as we
thought were called for by the lamentable folly
'of Mr. Loveday on the one side, and the.u4rin-
cipled scheme of intrigue and bigotry that had
been practised against him on the other.---We
have now to add the reply which has a ppeared.under
the name of the unhappy daughter, to the narra-
tive of his griefs put forth by the fattier. If one
did not consider into what hands this young
woman has ,fallen, it would be impossible to ab-
stain from pronouncing her lost- to- all shame.
In fact, both father and child are the dupes and
instruments of low intriguers of opposite factions.
The father got into the hands of some scribbling
charlatan, who surcharged his case- with the irre-
; levant declamation of a party pamphlet—perhaps

evrh withorli the puny virtrte of labouring, for a I
party—solely to letfro:4rnall, contribution on
the vagrant literati, who peep into the book-shops
of •the Palais Royal. -The daughter now ap-
pears, in her turn, scandalizing not only the
duties arid delicacies, but the common decorum
of a child to a parent, in a reply to the father's
case, penned by some canting knave or merce-
nary stranger, who puts forth, under her name,
and certainly with her consent) a tissue of cant-
ing. perversions and suppressions of truth—excla-
mations and apostrophes of high-wrought sensi-
bility, borrowed from the trash of common.place
novels—with professions of devoted aWection to
her father, in a tone of hypocritical sneering.—
We do not think _it worth our while to ex-
pose the falsehoods sent forth in this reply, by
the intrignin-,4,. canting coterie which has laid
hold of this foolish girl for their purposes, or the
impudent consciousness of security with which they
suppress the truth-and gloss over palpable lies—
well knowing that the public press of Paris
will not be allowed to place them before the
tribunal of public opinion. We cannot abstain,
however, from noticing one specimen of the im-
moral—indeed impudent—Jesuitism which is
,vowed in this affair. The schoolmistress never
encouraged Miss Loveday's conversion !—she
only allowed the work of conversion to go on at
Miss Loveday's entreaty ! She never wrote to
the father, saying he had nothing to fear on
the score of religion!—having only got her sister
to do so Then, again, the young lady did
not conceal from her father her being a
.Ro-
man Catholic; for, during the period of her se-
crecy on the subject she was not a Roman Ca,
tholic—having then only determined to becoMe
one. It 'is necessary to repeat, that in these,
and any other observations on this subject, we
are far from denying the right of Roman Catho-
lics to make and receive converts, and equally
far from casting the slightest reflection on that
form of Christian belief and worship, or on the
moral purity of its sanctions.

RIOTOUS ACTS of the WEAVERS in WILTSHIRE.

Tuesday morning (22d. inst.) the Magistrates
of Bradford having received information that the
weavers were -coming there in the course of the
day to break the spring looms, &c., the gentle-
men and all the principal housekeepers were
sworn in speciaLconstables, being determined to
resist such illegal proceedings; and between
three and fciur o'clock, accounts were brought
that a:very large number, several, hundreds, were
advancing, and wititin a mile of the town, and
had begun to break some looMs to pieces in the
houses on the road. The Magistrates and con-
stables immediately proceeded to the spot, when
(the Riot Act being read) they took into custody
such of the rioters, about thirty, as were pointed
out to have been-ctrticerned in the mischief which
was done, and eventually dispersed the rest of
the mob. Upon examination of the prisoners be-
fore the MagistrateS, eight, who were identified
and sworn to as being the most active, were com-
mitted and sent off immediately to Devises Bride-
welli to take their trials at Salisbury 'Assizes ;
eight more were remanded for further examina-
tion the next morning ; and the rest were suffered
to depart home, having entered into recognizances
to keep the -peace for 12 months, a►rd to appear
to answer the-charge when called upon. In the
evening, about 150 of the Wiltshire Yeo-
manry, commanded by John Benett,. Esq., came
into the town to assist in the preservation of
the public peace; and we understand that regu-
lar troops will be stationed in both the towns of
Bradford and Trowbridge. We hope this will
prove a salutary check to these misguided , peo-
ple, and' that they will return quietly to their
work.—(Bath Chronicle.)
We find from a correspondent, that about a
fortnight since a great body of weavers entered
the town of Chippenham, Wilts, and proceeded
to the factory of Messrs. C. S-. Taylor and Co.,
with one of their weavers at the head of the mob,
who was_compelled to bring back his work, and
prevented from finishing it, without an advance
in the price of his wagess which, were the regular
and established ones ; but• by the prompt mea-
sures which were instantly adopted.- four of the
principal ringleaders were taken before'a Bench
of Magistrates the following day, and were 'com-
mitted to Devizes Bridewell io abide.the sen-
tence of the law.---(Bath Chronicle.)

SHOCKING AND DETERMINED SU ICIDE.—An
quisition was taken yesterday before J. W. UN-
WIN, Esq., Coroner, at the Grave Morris, White-
chapel-road, on the body of Mr. George Ed-
monds, of Plumber's-row, Mile-end Old-town,
aged 33.--Mrs. Sarah Edmonds, the wife of the
deceased, deposed, that on Saturday last, about
eleven o'clock in the forenoon, she was sitting
with him in the workshop ; he was, cutting out
his work as a boot and shoemaker with his kiae,
when on a sudden he said, " now is the time,"
and instantly lifting up 'the knife, he cut his
throat with it, but the injury was trifling. She
instantly snatched the knife out of his ',apt'.
Soon afterwards, without her perceiving it, he
stabbed himself in the left side with anothar
knife. She saw it sticking in his body, and in
pulling it out they both fell on the ground toge-
then. She then ran for a doctor, leaving a per-
son
to mind the deceased during her absence.
The person abandoned him, and he again stabbed
himself on the same side again. On her return,
-she found the knife up to the handle in the
wound, and the brood. flowing copiously. He was
taken to-the London Hospital, where he died on
Tuesday. .He had been in a low, desponding
state for some time. Verdict—" Temporary
Mental Derangement."
Sunocs DEATu.-=-Wednesday afternoon, Mr.
EDWARD SCAULETT, TeSiding in Carpenter's-
buildings, London-wall, complained of .a pain in
his stomach, after partaking,of a hearty dinner,
and instantly expired. A medical gentleman was
immediately sent for, who used every effort to
restore animation, but 'the vital spark had fled.
Mr. S. was 63 years of age ; he had held a lucra-
tive situation in the Excise . for the last 49 }Tars.
Wednesday night,- the chapel in Bury-street,
St. Mary Axe,' formerly Dr. WATT'S, %%lIS entered
by thieves, and robbed_ of an eight-day clock and
other articles.

LAW INTVLLIGENCE

'(:CURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. N.•.•
WILOA74 HENRY COATES v. HENRY COATES, •
Mr. bit moved for an injunction to restrain the.defena-.
ant frompractiSing as a surgeon and midwife within 10 miles
of Salisbury, bit the grounds that the plaintiff and defendant
had entered into partnerships in that profession, on the express
condition that, at the expiration of, the partnership, he should
not practice as a surren and midwife iri the limits abOyemenz•
timed ; but he was at liberty to practice ta a physician.
The defendant had serVed. the plaintiff with notice of the
expiration of the partnershiP, and was canvassing for.patientA,
and practising as a surgeon and midwife at Salisbury, contrary
to the express meaning of the clause in the deed of partnership.
Under these circumstances, he trusted that his.Lordshipwould
grant the injunction.
The Loan CHANCEALOR. said he could have no hesitation
to grant the injunction, were it not for the unfortunate patients;
and on their account he thought the defendant should receive
notice of motion. The dtfendant might be called upon to act a
fractured- limb, or to deliver half the women in Salisbury:
Mr. HORNE said it would not be proper for him to say that
the defendant had no busineis, because his. client complained
that he was taking his away. The defendant should therefore
receive notice of motion.

EX-PARTE CARROLL, IN THE MATTER 01' HOWARD AND

GIBBS.

The Loan CHANcELLon, addressing himself.to the: Coun-
sel. employed in this case, observed, that he had found that Mr.
Howard, one of the bankrupts, had proved a debt against the
joint estate to the amount of 9251., in the character of an exe••
cutor, and he had in consequence voted, upon the election of
the assignees, in favour of Messrs. Carroll, Wilkie and Dulf.—
lf the vote of Mr. Howard were subtracted,. themajority. would
be against the persons he had just named. lie wished to know
whether ,oiy Gentleman at the Bar could furnish him With a
case in which a bankrupt, proving a debt against hiniscifi had
been allowed to vote for asngnees

CHAI'PLE AND FISDER V. CADELL, MAIVUAN, AND

OTHERS.

' This case; which we have already fully reported, came on
again this day, when the Counsel for the. defendants .were
heard. It was an appeal from the judgment of the Master of
the Rolle, on the merits of a, bill, filed by the plaintiffs, for the
purpose of Nina-' restored to - the enjoyment of their interest iti
the proilts of the British PrtsS and Globe Newspapers,
from which, as they alleged, they had been debarred by an
act of their co-partners,
.which they were not competent to do.
The Master of the Rolls decided in their favour to a certain
extent only, and, in consequence, they appealed from his
..tidg-
merit to the Court: of Cheiseery. The case on behalf of the-
appellants was heard on a former day.
Messrs. "WETuEnE La, HORNE, and RAITHRY, addressed
the Court this day for the respondents. They first entered into
the consideration of the preliminary questions, whether or not
there was any thing in the articles of - agreement originally be-
tween all the parties which negatived the power of the ma-
jority to bind the whole by their acts, and even, if necessary,
to dissolve the partnership. They entered into an examination
of the articles themselves, and contended that, according to the
terms of these articles, as also according to the understanding of
the parties themselves, this poVaer was resident in the majority.
Upon the merits of the case they were equally clear that the
appellants had no equity, because, though they had opposed' the
resolution to sell the papers, and though they protested against the
sale, yet they afterwards tendered proposals for the purchase of
the concern, when it was exposed for sede by private contract, by
virtue of the above resolution. Again : the relief a hich they
prayed, was of so singular a nature, that it could not but very much
affect the case of the appellants. They first asked relief because
they said that the majority had not the power to dikprise of
their (the appellant's) interest, and next they sought relief
upon an adoption of that very sale. Thus then, the Learned
Counsel contended, that the majority had • right to sell ; and
k it
next, that they sold in a legal, fair, an honest. manner ;
that the appellants were not entitled even - o the measure, of
relief which the Master of the Rolls affbrded them, but that
the bill should have been dismissed avail= them with costs ;
and that the only equity which 'theilthe appellants) had a
right to was their proportion of the parchaseamoney paid for
the papers, which was never denied to them, but which they
obstinately refused.
Mr. ItaitT was about to reply, when
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was afraid lie could not
hear the whole of the reply, and it would 'be better to post-
pone it.

M. IlArtT—My reply shah be extremely short.
The Loan CHANc ELLOR—I am afraid I could mit wait to
hear it all, and that would be unsatisfactory to your clients.

COUIVII OF KING'S BENCH, JAN'. 21

DIXON V. REID.

This was an action on a policy of insurance, tried before the
Lord. Chief Justice at Guildhall. The declaration .stated,..that.
after the vessel left Sierra Leone, and while she was prNieeding
on her voyage from .thence to London, she was lost with her
cargo, by barratry of the ;Master and Mariners. I.t appeared in
evidence, that after the ship had set sail on her homeward voy-
age, it was discovered that some of the casks containing Water'
had been staved : the crew were put on short allowance, and
the vessel was finally taken to Barbados, and sold with part or
the cargo. . The rest of the cargo arrived in England, but it did
not appear that any part of it ever was recovered by the owner.
The plaintiff recovered a verdict.
The So i.teiTon-GENE it AL now moved for a new trial on
three grounds :-Ist, that if, as was probable, the fraudui-,t
intention of the Captain had its inception before the ship left
Sierra Leone, .so that in fact she never sailed fdr London, it,
could Rot be truly averred, ip the language of: the declaration,
that the_ arratry took place while -she was proceeding on the
voyage to London : 2d, that as part of her cargo we brought
to England, the plaintiffought fornially to have given notice of
abandonMent : and, 3dly, that if the alteration in -the course of
the vessel took place from the want of provisions produced by
the negligence of the Captain, not amounting in the first in-
stance to barratry, this was such a deviation as would put an end
to the liability of the insurers. •
But the COURT thought, on the first point, that the allega-
tion was divisible, and that, even supposing previous fraud, the
loss was well stated. On the second point, they thought it suf-
ficient that none of the proceeds had been shewn to come to the
owner's hands : and on the third, as it was not suggested at the
trial, and as they did not conceive the Jury would have found
reason to alter their opinion on the whole case if it had been sub-
mittal to them, they . would not disturb the verdict. They
therefere refused the motion ; but ordered that inquiry should
be made, whether any of the proceeds of the cargo had been re,
ceived by the plaintiff, -and if any had been received, that the
amount Ilhould be deducted from the damages.

\VEST V. YRANCIP.,. •
This was an action for the piracy of prints, representing the
performers at some of the Theatres, in picturesque attitudes.
The defendant was not the artist who had imitated the origi-
nals, but merely the publiSher. The prints sold Is%I:-.i.not exact
copies from the originals, butvariedfrom them in several ciremn-
stances of dress and attitude. The Jury ibUlld 4. verdict for the
plaintiff.
Mr. OuliNE X' now -moved to set the verdict aside, and to
enter a nonsuit. The Act of Parliament made this distinction
between the artist who was guilty of pirating the works of ano.:
ther, and a mere publisher—that the former was liable to an
action if lie copied any part of another's design, however he
mightalter it in many particulars, but that the latter was liable
only when lie an exact copy. This distinction was made
to protect • a publisher who might never have seen the ori-
ginal, or only have looked at it in a cursory manner, and who
might be entirely unconscious that the work which lie sold was,
in part, taken from another. In the case of Galia;an v. Cooper,
3 Campbell, 111., the point was decided on- a similar clause of
.the 38th Ge0..111. c. 71.
The Co u ItT thought the point deserved consideration, and
therefore granted a rule to chew cause.

THE KING.V. DENNELL AND OTHERS.

Mr. Cun;e)o;;ved for a rule to shew cause why a crimi-
nal information should not be rranted against James Bennell
and three other persons residing- at Colchester, in Essex. Qn
the 3d of September last, the election of the e\layor and four
Headmen was holden at Colchester, and the 'election for the
offices of headmen was severely contested. Qn this occasion
James Bennell tendered his vote, Which was disputed, and otl
finding an objection iaised, he seized the poll-books, and ob-
tained possession of them, while the other parties moved against
made a violent-disturbance in the hall. The books were reco-
vered, but the destruction was so great, that the Mayor adjourn-
ed t)e election till the followingday.
The Cou av granted a rule to chew cause.

BLUNDELL V. BLUNDELL.

Mr. ANDREWS moved-for a rule to shew cause why the de-
fendant's Attorney should not pay the costs of severarattempts
to justify bail beibre a Judge in Chambers. It was sworn that
he had given notice of bail, one of whom he afterwards acknow-
ledged to be insufficient; that he supplied his- place with an-
other equally improper ; and that he had caused great delay in
the attendance to justify. A letter had been addressed to him,
requesting him to pay the expences occasioned by this conduct,
but he had returned no answer. . _

The COURT granted the rule, the Chief Justice ohseriing
that very great abuses prom* in putting in bail at Chambers.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, J.N. 24.
IMPORTANT CASE. _ _

VincenWhoiast:YWiuiUTN;as discharged under
the Iniolverrt Act, was now again brought up by Mr. Clegg,
and uti►cr oppesing creditors, to give an acceunt of Ins effects

•
anti t? mc;l in which thy previotin to Li 4 •
.discharge 'The Creditors had made inquiries into the estatoh
and effects a the insolvent, arid , dii.Ylvr,-(1 t:lat thik
had been,' by his- artifices and t:•l6Se of. the insolv.!nt's fathri', •
and relations, deftauded of a con,iik.mlo.2 qiiantity of valuahlC
property both real and personal, amenntma to.a Wry 1avg6441,24'
of money.

The insolvent, vr%o is a shopkeeper reaisqing at Sudbury; was
examined at very Feat length by lir. if ans.:Pa oas the part of,
the opposing creditors. In the course of thi.4. -etamihation he
stated that his father was a farmer, li-anig WtdtlintAtid; afld
that 'while in priSon (previous to his former diScharge) he had
frequent intercourse with him, and' alsoarith; -is:'two•brothero
Philip and Henry. From the latter he had received 1101. worth,
.of debts collected. There was also 'an agreement .entered-into'
between his brother and himself, while in prison, relative to
some land which was his (the insolvent's)propetty. The effect'
of this tn.ateement Was to allow his brother to take the land upon!
the consideration of MI. While in prison; too, some debts were
scratched Mat of his boos tia paid which wesharevar paid; antls
which were mentioned os paid in his schedule. He would..
swear he-did not scratch'ont 2001. worth of thresealektsaThere
might be 10Q1. thus scratched out, but not more.
The principal evidence against the insolVent' 'wag a wiftiass ce
tht name of Nellor, who had been empinyed by him, andeh4
been Li his confidence, as Well as that of all his relations who.
were concerned in the business. He proved 'that lie was with;
the insolvent while in prison many times, and drew up the:
agreement between the insolvent and his brother; by which the'
latter was to give 501. consideration for an estate worth some.
hundred pounds. It was (Intim up in a regular form,
signed by the parties. (fin another oceserion witness was in.
prison with the insolvent, when Philip Vincent, the insolvent'i
brother, brought to his brother a bill for 2001., drawn by the
executors of the insolvent's present wife's father, at two *ears',
date. This was the insolvent's own property. The bill was'
shown to-witness by the insolvent, but the latter would ni.'•
suffer it to go Out of hi* custody, and kept his thumb on til
signature' of the brittioM of the bill. Witness Niked: at
back of the bill, and he saw it had no . endorsement. Anotina:
time Henry Vincent brought his brother 1101., he salt-t:
were debts collected from various er,2o-fors. Fie said h
had had a hard job. of it, .and he considered himself. Very,
lucky in having. obtained so much. Witness :!shed the iasolos
vent call his brother a d—d fool for, tioratehirag the
debts which had dates with them. The ineolvent•then'attemt.M
to alter the dates in the book by spitlts suit, diluted
water, and by scratching with a pensknife. Dore the book -11'54
introduced, and a
_particular entry Was pointed. cht by the
witness, where the insolvent had attempted tdobliterate a date.
and had failed. The entry was, " Received the above, Ike. Pt
1820 " Witness heard.the insolvent while in prison, and before
he was brought to the Court td be discharged, say, " My father
will become assignee. He will, get pOsaession of the books;
and all will be well." The iuSolvent's • father asked his ;ton
whether it would be necessary that he should be examined•aslto
the agreement, and the inso!vent replied, " No, I will adinit
that, and not a word shall be.mentioned about it." The fathef
alse expressed his apprehension that Cleggwould come' to the
knowledge of the 2001. bill. The insolVent answered, that he had
just received a letterfrom Clegg; and he (the insolvent) was 54''
tisfied he knew nothing about it. The father was anxious that
he should have
,possession of the bill, and asked 'the insolvent
why it was not as safe in his hands as 'Philip's. The insol-
vent replied, ".No, no, Philip knows hew to keep it best.',and implied, that his father might be inducud, as he was 21
old and infirm man, to disclose it. Witness, after the nisei,-
vent's dischasge in February, went down to Sudbury, and then
to WaitlingilAd, where the. insolvent's 'father- lived. The je'
solvent then aliEwed him a room in his father's house, where
there was a quantity of packed goods, consisting of hata,•tablngs
chairs, earthenware vessels, and glass utensils of various kinds. -
The insolvent told him that these were his property. Previons.
to his'cliseharre, the insolvent had informed witncsa that ht,
had sent goids to Waldingfield, and that the carter in
way •from Sudbury to his' father's house had been fortunaot
enough not• to meet a single person. After the insolvent
&salvaged, he dined at his canter's home. Witness, Mr. Cook
insolvent's biorhen in-law), and ethers, dirted there ale-
At IQ o'clock that night the goods belonging to: the insolvt,nt
'were to be removed to Sudirary, and one of the fathers wag -
gons was to be-employed. for this purpose. The father, how-
ever, would not allow of the goods bonne- put into the waggon,
saying it Was too artily, and some one might-sec then;, as tier"
were many passing by,addmg—" If we don't take care,
shall make a very .good. job a very bed one." The goods were
ultimately put into the waggon, and 'witness helped to load thean-
Theinsol vent, with his wife and child, accompanied' it terSuclbn rso
Another wage on-full of goods was brought from Mr. Cook $;
to Sultintry,.betweenii and ti in the:morning, about a wee's:
aftarwastis. - .They.consisted of very valuable furniture, chins,
glass, table-linen, beds, &c. Witness was waked up, and castled
out of•hia bed to unpack them. The insolvent told hini te,p'-tt -
the goods any Where, so that it was done quickly. 'his was don"
as exseeditiously as pessihle, and the nanrivent k'terwards
that °Ay oae 'man had passed (krill:. the time taic-
goods were unloidingn There were 't3 hats -f-naught.
I....a..:k7).iimusei' Two w;:-re missing, and the insolvent ehOtr
his brother-in-law *Ali stealing them.. The in selvent's bretirr
SaMuel owed him 201., and because he did net pay him at
moment he wanted, he threa.tarted to arrest kiln, and v.-cul!
have. done it had trio money not been
The witness was cross-examined at considerable length. 1"./'
the Counsel for the prisoner. He stated 'himself to have bee"
-a corn-factor; and. was -in- prison for debt when the prceent
solvent was there. lie was released about the same tune, but
I di-I rent take advali tense of the Inselvent Act.
Nellor was confirmed by another witness in every impostor.:
nartichlar.

ELATIT then addressed the Court on bthaif of the•oP-
posing credito,s, and advtrtcd to the strong fret;; which had liccn,
proved against the insolvent. If the eviaerico-, he observed. (''
Nenor* and tite.corroborating witness were untrue, tht irwolvt
bad ample opportuinty of calling witnesses to disprove tlui:r
statements. -
No witnesses were called on the pait of the insolvent. -
The Cm Er minlst3os tat said, that there could be iv'
doubt in the tided of any num velio had be;ird
that a gross fraud had been practised by the . in:Solvent upol'
his, creditors. It was a fratt. of the 'grossest nature, bctO. ;
to the debts due to and from the insolvent ; and not cm (.1-
the debts whLh had been marked out as paid by the insol-
vent while in pr s tri, had been put into the. schedule. The seb!'`
Jule was a fabnoation from beginning to the end. The inF9:-
vent intending to avail himself of a nieitiLUl a.;t, bed b.:ese'Y
devised the means of defrauding his creditors, yven of Oiclitt;o,
which wits left to them, as ti sniali reparation for the losses
had by him sustained. The Court had anxiously cndezvour,..d.
to ascertain whether there were any palliating 6=r:lsta:ices In
this case, which might operate in son.le measore us an extcnira-; '
tion of the insolvent's conduct, but none bad been inund, :0`
it was therefore the duty of time Court. to punish the offendercu
the utmost extent which the law allowed: The Court, they
fide, revoked. the adjudication and discharg_ which hud
given, and directed. that the insolent should not be dischirg'i!.
nest f custody untilt.be expiration of three years, at the suit 01
Mr. Clegg and his other opposing creditors.