The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-01 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, OCT. 31.

Mr. John Bryant Lane, the historical and portrait
painter, applied from the King's Bench on his petition to
be discharged. He was opposed by Mr. Stiles, a cre-
ditor, for picture frames, and was supported by Mr. WOOD
ROFFE.

The petitioner was examined by the opposing creditor.
He considered himself, two years ago, when he contracted
this debt, perfectly solvent. He had previously studied
his art in Italy. He had been kindly assisted by Lord De
Dunstanville, and had inserted his Lordship and his bro-
ther in his schedule as creditors, though he never expected
to be called upon for the debts. He had had two valuable
pictures, one representing the " Parting of Lord William
Russell from his family," and the other " The Vision of
Joseph ;" the former had cost him 5001., and the latter was
worth 700/. He had, among other pictures, given up for
the benefit of his creditors " The Parting of Lord William
Russell." It had been sold by the brokers of the Court
for 30/. The other picture would be given up for the cre-
ditors on paying 601. to the proprietors of the Pantechnicon
for its exhibition in their rooms. The same picture was
exhibited in the King's Mews. Mr. Lane said a friend of
Mr. Steirs came to him in prison and required some ar-
rangement, which he refused. _ .

The opposing creditor expressed himself satisfied with the
evidence of Mr. Lane ; he answered the questions in a
straightforward manner. He was about to be discharged,
when it was discovered that'an advertisement had not been
inserted in a Brighton paper.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN expressed his regret at the
omission, which would delay his discharge for some time.
He ordered the case to be adjourned for the insertion of
the advertisement.

Mr. John Mitten, a lieutenant in the navy on half-pay,
was opposed by Mr. WOODROFFE, on the part of Mr.
Lewis Price Maddon, ancL was supported by Mr. COOKE.
The insolvent's half-pay amounted to 821. 10s. a year,
independent of which his wife had 801. a year, which on
her death would revert to him. She had suffered much
from ill-health. He had been in active service from 1799
until the termination of the late war, and had received two
wounds in his head. The ground of opposition was to ob-
tain a portion of the pay for the creditors.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN ordered 401. a year to be set
aside, and discharged the insolvent. The Court adjourned
till Monday.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

Q UEEN- SQ UARE,

THE CHIMNEY-SWEEPERS' ACT.—Yesterday consider-
able sensation was excited amongst the chimney-sweepers in
Westminster in consequence- of informations laid against
twq of the fraternity, under a clause in the late Act of
Parliament lately come into operation, which subjects them
to a penalty of any sum not exceeding 101., or less than 40s.
The informations were laid by Millard, and the first case
was against R. Michell, of Bull's Head-court, Great Peter-
street. He was charged with having employed a boy under
fourteen years of age as a chimney sweep, he not being an
apprentice, contrary to the Act of Parliament.
The defendant, after the information was read over to
him, was asked whether he was " Guilty, or not guilty ?"
The defendant stared wildly on being questioned, as if
he did not understand what was meant, but on its being re-
peated, he said, " Not guilty, my Lords."
John Staples, on Monday, the 27th instant, saw the de-
fendant with a little boy carrying tools as a chimney sweep.
They went into a house in Greycoat-street, Tothill-fields.
He watched them for some time, and saw them come out
again, and the defendant brought out a bag full of soot,
which he carried across his shoulders. He watched them
home, and ascertained that the boy's name was John Wilson,
and to all appearance he did not look to be above ten years
of age.
Mr. WHITE—Have you any further evidence ? Wit-
ness—No, Sir.
Mr. WHITE—Then the case is very incomplete, you
have no proof that the boy was under fourteen years of age.
Witness—He did not appear to be ten.
Mr. WHITE—Very likely ; but we cannot inflict a heavy
penalty on a man merely on a boy's appearance.
The defendant was not called upon for his defence, and
the case was dismissed.

Robert Marshal, of Great Peter-street, master chimne'
sweep, appeared to answer a similar complaint.
Old Bob, as he is termed, prides himself on having a
great knowledge of the law, and on being asked whether he
was guilty or not guilty, made no reply.
Clerk—Are you guilty or not guilty ? Bob—l begs
werry respectively to take a werry peculiar jection to this
here hinformashion.
Mr. WHITE—What is it ? Bob—Vhy, in this here
paper they calls me " Robert." Now, though people calls
me " Bob," that's not my name.
Mr. WHITE—Then what is your name? Bob—Vhy,
my name is Thomas Marshall, therefore this hinformashion
is regularly flummuxed.
Mr. WHITE told him that he certainly might avail him-
self of the objection if he thought proper, but another in-
formation would be laid against him in his right name. He
might take his choice.
Bob—ls that ere the new Hact ? Vell, then, I pleads
" Not guilty."
Staples, on the 27th inst., saw the defendant come out of
his house with a little boy carrying tools as a chimney-
sweeper, and shortly afterwards he saw them return home,
the defendant loaded with a bag of soot.
Bob—Veil, and vhat of that ?
Mr. WHITE—What age was the boy?—Witness said
that he appeared very young and under fourteen years
of age.
Mr. WHITE—That evidence won't do. The Legislature,
by the Act of Parliament, has laid the onus on the person
suing for the penalty to prove the age of the boy.
The informer said that the defendant had received notice
to produce the boy, but he was not in attendance.
Mr. WHITE had no objection to adjourn the case until
next week, when the boy might be produced, which was
agreed to.