The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-22 00:00:00

VINC/lIIISTEIt, Nov. 17.

This day, HENRY REVEL RE-Yr.:o[3)R, Esq. the
• Chief Commissioner, appointed under 5 Ceo. IV. c. 81, held
his first sitting in the Crown Court, at the County Ball, for the
Relief of Insolvent Debtors. Only three persons of this descrip.
lion presented themselves, and each of them was opposed. The
first ease entered Into was that of Isaac Fountain, a showman,
who was opposed by Mr. Missing, sen. on behalf of the assig-
nees of Joseph Bell. It appeared that Mr. Bell was the mas-
ter of a vessel trading to the AVest Indies, and had, when
abroad, become possessed. of a little girl, a native of Cuba
(described as a white negress), and brought her to Guern-
sey. Be entered into a contract with the insolvent, the terms
of which were that he should have the child on certain terms,
for the purpose of exhibiting about the country for three
years, and then to he returned to Bell, the bankrupt. The
insolvent had, at the time of signing the agreement, paid two
months in advance, but nothing since, and it was now con-
tended, that he had fraudulently withheld the profits arising
from the exhibition. According to Fountains statement, the
speculation was not a very profitable one, and he disclaimed
all knowledge of the present situation of the girl, or any direct
or indirect participation in the profits of the exhibition. Evi-
dence was called to prove that the exhibition was well attended,
but nothing was elicited as to the actual profits. The Commis-
sioner strongly questioned the moralty of such a contract—the
moral principles of two persons covenanting for the exhibition
of an unfortunate fellow creature in the public streets, and at
fairs were very questionable, and before an application for de-
priving an individual of his liberty is acceded to, it was indis-
pensably necessary that the party tasking it should come into a
Court of Justice with clean hands: this was not the case ; the
compact was contra Laos mores.
Mr. Missing " alluded to the case of the King v. Dunlop, re-
specting the Hottentot Venus," to 'thew that the contract
was tenable; but the Commissioner decided that the cases
were not analogous ; and still thinking it a most immoral and
indecent exhibition, he should not remand the insolvent ; of
this the assignees had no reason to complain, for they could
not expect to be placed in a better situation than the principal
himself.

The insolvent was then directed to certify on oath, under his
own hand, that he had no interest or property in any show what,
ever, which having been complied with, the Commissioner ed.
dressed him as fellows :_" Isaac Fountain,—The peculiar
situation in which yon stand before the Court is of such a na-
ture, that I do not feel myself justified, under the provisions of
the Act of Parliament, in remanding you ; but if discharged
it will not be on account of your own merit, but by rea-
son of' the original party in this transaction (Bell) hav-
ing as much demerit as yourself, and because of a defect
of evidence, though there are strop}, suspicions respecting the
appropriation of the property over which you exercised a con-
troul. Recollect, however, that if what you have this day
stated shall subsequently turn out to be untrue, you will be
liable to be indicted for perjury, have your discharge revoked,
to be again committed to prison, and further be subject to an
indictment for a misdemeanour, and, on conviction, may be
imprisoned three years, and kept to hard labour during that
period. If at a future time you should be in a situation to
par your debts, your creditors can call upon this Court to
assist in the recovery of them." The insolvent was then dis-
charged.
The discharge of a debtor, named Boghurst, detained for a
debt of 241, due to Mr. ;;hotter, was opposed, on account of
having omitted to state in his schedule that he had, in right of
his wife, a reversionary interest in some premises and land at
'
Buckland. The Commissioner directed that the omission
should he supplied, and the insolvent. discharged, observ-
ing that the circumstance of this being the only claim upon him
was strong presumption of the absence of any design of fraud.
James Hayter was opposed, in person, by the Rev. Richard
Wilbraham Ford, a creditor, on the ground of a fraudulent
preference. It appeared that a person named Burton had lent
the insolvent 951. at three separate periods for which he had
given notes of hand; Hayter subsequently gave a bill of sale
of all his effects to Burton, receiving back the Lilts. It was
attempted to be shown that these bills were not given for a bona
fide consideration. Burton not being in a situation to lend mo.
ney ; of this however no proof was adduced. Another ground
of objection was that a sum of' money had been paid on the 21st
out of the proceeds of the sale, for rent, which was not due till
the 29th of Se ; thereby injuring the other creditors,
by depriving them of the increased dividend which a division
of the money would have produced. The Commissioner saw
no reason for remanding the man, no proof had been given of
Burton's inability to lend die money, and the insolvent had
sworn positively to the receipt • of the various sums for which
the bills were given. Then as to paying the rent a few days
before it was due, the insolvent was not privy to that transac-
tion ; he should therefore order him to be discharged.
We observe that it is the practice of this Court not to allow
atomics to examine insolvents when barristers are present ;
but a creditor may personally exercise that privilege.