The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-03 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, MAY 1.

IN THE MATTER OF SIR THOMAS CHAMPNEYS, BART.
A numerous meeting of creditors was held on Saturday
before Mr. Commissioner Law, in the case of Sir Thomas
Champneys, for the proof of debt; under the insolvency of
the year 1835, and only one more meeting will take place
before the dividend will be declared. The inquiry has
been of a very important description, and has disclosed
some extraordinary statements on " bill discounting." The
dividend is expected to be somewhat considerable, arising
on a large sum provided by Lady Champneys. The debts
and liabilities were stated in the schedule at 95,882/. 73.
9d., of which sum the deceased Baronet alleged he had
consideration for only 24,4481. 93. Bd., the remainder being
on " bill transactions." There were large claims on the
other side. Among the creditors represented on this oe-
cation, were Messrs. Sewall and Cross, the linen-drapers,
Mr. Hamlet, silversmith, and others. The present was a
preliminary meeting to the final adjustment of the claims,
and those creditors who do not substantiate their debts in
a few days will be excluded from the dividend about to be
declared.

The claim on the part of Messrs. Sewell and Cross is an
extraordinary one. It was made on a former occasion when
Mr. Commissioner Law expressed his opinion, and the so-
licitor of the firm now attended to know if the Learned
Commissioner had changed his views. He said he had
not, and would on the final meeting give his opinion at
length. He, however, adhered to what he had stated.
Messrs. Sewell and Cross claimed to prove for 1,0001. on
three bills, two for 250/. each, which they discounted, and
the other on 500/., for which they supplied goods, and
which goods, it was proved, were afterwards sold for 84/.1
It was, however, urged that they had only charged fair
prices, and on the part of the assignees that it was clearly
usurious, and could not stand.

The COMMISSIONER held that the 5001. bill could net be
admittod, and now said he saw no reason to alter his mind.

A claim on four bills for 1,8001. was made on the part of
Mr. Hamlet, the silversmith. A gentleman said the as-
signees of Mr, Hamlet, whl was recently made a bank-
rupt, claimed the dividend, and a solicitor for a Mr. Tur-
ner made his claim to the dividend. Mr. Hamlet was
examined, and stated that he had given goods to one
George Pennell for the bills accepted by Sir Thomas
Champneys. lie only charged one price for his articles,
and whether cash or bill 3 it was the same.
It was remarked that it was an extraordinary way of do-
ing business.
Mr. Hamlet said he should charge a king the same as a
postman. He bad one marked price for his articles.
The COURT allowed the claim, with interest.
The next question was, who was to receive the dividend ?
It appeared that Mr. Hamlet had made a deed of assign-
ment in 1834, and Mr. Turner, who held the bills, had
adsanced 3,0001. on them and others of the Duke of York's
some time after they Were due. The assignees of Mr.
Hamlet clai:ned the dhilend in this case, and the solicitor
for the assignees of Sir Thomas decla,ed his intention to
pay them. _ _

Commissioner LAP? was occupied with other claims
the whole day. This case has, from its peculiar features,
crealcd a good deal of interest.

COURT OF EXCISE, MAY 1.
Mr. Thomas Powell, of the Articheko public-house in
Fat ringdon-strcet. was charged as follows:
Mr. Cook, an officer, sail that a few days ago, he took
the defendant's stock, at which time he had on his promises
one hundred and thirty gallons of gin. About forty-eight
hours afterwards he examined hi.;
goods, and found an in-
crease in the gin of ta eay-two gallons, which quantity he
se.zed.

Derendant, in explanation, ttatcd that the gin when first
seen by the officer wus just had in from the distillery, :And
consequently it was unfit for consumption. Between the
%iiita of Mr. Cook, he (defendant) sweetened it, and re-
duced it to its proper strength, which accounted for the in-
create. Even if eustomrra could drink it as it came fi orn
the distillers, witness would lose, by re:giling it at the p, 'e-
sent pricer, at the rate of 33. per gallon.

Sir J. MORTLOCK—You ought not to have reduced it
unless in the preq-r:ce <>f 0,4 L ffi.,2r„
Mr. MAYow, the soi►eito: of :Le tJourt—But he Would
not then be allowed to lower it. Your point has reference
only to foreign spirits.
Defendant—Every publican is obliged to do as I have
done. It is great hardship.
Mr. Commissioner STEVENSON—SO I think.
Defendant—How are we to act ?
Mr. MAIOW—You must comply with the law.
The Court condemned the 22 gallons.
Mr. Richard Welsh, licensed victualler, was complained
of for receiving into his house 12 gallons-of brandy without
a permit. The defendant said that his brother bought from
the Customs 200 gallons of brandy, the whole of which
was permitted to him in the regular way. He sold to
witness 12 gallons, and he was removing that quantity un-
der the same permit when it was seized.
The COURT remarked that it required a separate permit,
and they adjudged the brandy forfeited.
An immense quantity of illicit spirits and a large still,
and a variety of utensils, which had been seized on the
premises of a person named Furse, of No. I, Swan-lane,
Thames-street, City, was brought to this Court. The
detection, it appeared, had been made by Mr. Golding
Bird, the Surveying-General Examiner, and Messrs.
Bullen and Stevenson, the officers of excise. The still
was in full work, and on a scale the most extensive which
the officers had ever met with. The proprietor of the
place was immediately taken before the Lord Mayor, who
fined him in the sum of 301., which he immediately paid.