The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-11 00:00:00

Commissioner of Bankrupts, at the Court-house, on
the 11th of January. The prisoner, however, did not
surrender, having gone to Atn:.rica ; nor had he since
surrendered, or applied to surrender. The usual no-
tice of adjudication was inserted in the London Ga•
zette; on the 15th of February he was proclaimed an
outlaw, and subsequently the Commissioner issued his
warrant for the prisoner's apprehension, which was
effected in the month of November last. The indict-
ment was framed under the 251st section of the 12. h
and 13th Victoria, c. 106, which enacts that if any
person adjudged bankrupt shall not, upon the day
limited for his surrender, after notice thereof in writ-
ing has been personally served upon him, or left at
his last usual place of abode, and after notice given in
the London Gazette of the issuing of the fiat, or filing
of the petition for adjudication of bankruptcy
against him, as the case may be, and of the sittings
of the court, surrender himself to the court, and sub-
mit to be examined by such court from time to time,
or shall not discover his estate, or shall conceal or
embezzle any part of his estate, every such bankrupt
shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall be liable
to transportation for life, or for such term not less
than seven years as the court before which he shall be
convicted shall adjudge; or shall be liable to impri-
sonment, with or without hard labour, for any term
not exceeding three years."
Mr. TINDAL ATKINSON addressed the jury for the
prisoner, and contended that the notice which had to
be left at the last known place of abode of the bank-
rupt, as directed by the Act of Parliament, had not
been satisfactorily proved to have been served ; and,
further, that though the prisoner bad left for America,
it was not shown that he absconded for the purpose of
defrauding his creditors.
His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury re-
turned a verdict of Guilty.—Sentence deferred.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE WALTER LEVY.

The bankrupt was a maccaroni manufacturer in
White's-row, Spitalfields. His debts are 2,1631.,
assets about 2,0001. This wes the certificate meeting.
Mr. Linklater supported; Mr. Sidney, for the assig-
nees, did not offer any opposition. Mr. Norton op-
posed on behalf of Mr. Barber, a creditor.
Mr. NORTON complained that at a meeting of his
creditors the bankrupt had not given any account of
some property of which he was. the possessor, includ-
ing his household furniture.
The bankrupt, in reply, stated that at the time re-
ferred to he showed assets of 203. in the pound, and
he did not consider it necessary to mention the pro-
perty in question. It further appeared from his exa-
mination by Mr. Linklater that, having been in bu-
siness forty-nine years, and amassed a property of
2,800/., it occurred to him that he would dispose of
his business. He did so to a Mr. Lea, he (the bank-
rupt) however continuing his liability. There was a
heavy loss by his connexion with Mr. Lea, and he
again took the business into his own hands. Shortly
afterwards be had placed his affairs in the hands of
his creditors, and his assets had realised 15s. in the
pound, independently of the expenses of the court.
His HONOUR said that he should ever hold it to be
serious offence in a trader to submit an untrue state-
ment of his affairs to his creditors. But in this case
he did not consider that an offence had been com-
mitted. The statement furnished showed 203. in the
pound, and it would have been impertinent in cre-
ditors to have desired or inquired after more. There
could not have been any intention on the part of the
bankrupt to conceal from his creditors the possession
of his furniture. They would see at once that it was
not included in the statement furnished, and if they
had inquired the cause the answer of the bankrupt
would probably have been, "I have not included my
furniture, there being 20g. in the pound without it."
The only circumstance that pressed adversely to the
bauhrupt was, that he had continued his liability on
account of the business whilst he bad substantially
parted with its control. He could not consider the
losses that had thus occurred as unavoidable, and on
that ground only the bankrupt could not receive a
certificate of the first class. It was a common prac-
tice for traders to carry on business in another name
than their own, but it was a practice that that Court
could not view with favour. It was a practice rather
that deserved reprobation. The bankrupt would re
ceive an immediate certificate of the second class.