The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-17 00:00:00

IN BE JOHN HUNT.-JUDGMENT.

The bankrupt was a draper of the Edgewere-road.
His HoNona said this was also an application for cer-
tificate, but the bankrupt was opposed by all his trade
creditors on four grounds:—lst. That he ought to have
stopped sooner; 2d. That he had made false representa-
tions as to the state of his affairs; 3d. That he had
pledged goods to the amount of 7,0001. and upwards
shortly before his bankruptcy, at high rate of interest,
without any chance of redemption; and, 4th, That he
had sold his goods by forced sales at a loss of 1,0001. in
6,0001. shortly before his bankruptcy. He regretted to
say that all the grounds of objection were established. It
appeared that prior to 1847, the bankrupt had been in
partnership with one Whalley, and in August of that
year he was compelled to call his creditors together.
His assets showed, as he stated, I Is. in the pound
upon debts amounting to about 28,0001.; his account-
ant, however, advised him to oiler 125., which he
did; but when a committee of his creditors assembled,
they unanimously resolved that not less than 13s. 4d.
should be accepted, giving, however, the unsatisfac-
tory reason, that although ho had not been guilty of
dishonesty, his expenditure was reckless; as it reck-
less expenditure would enable a man to pay a larger
dividend. The bankrupt, however, weakly yielded; and
that sowed the seed of his present insolvency. This con-
cession it was the Commissioner's public duty to con-
demn in the strongest way. It was his opinion, that the
act of an insolvent in purchasing a secret, a hole-and-
corner settlement of his affairs, by undertaking to pay
one farthing more than his assets were valued at, was
nothing short of robbing a new body of creditors to over
pay an old; and he wished the bankrupt and all other
persons who might be in a similar situation to under-
stand, that whenever such a case was brought before
him he should look upon it as conduct deserving the
strongest reprobation. The course an insolvent ought
to pursue, when he found himself unable to meet his
engagements, was to place himself and his books in the
bands of his creditors, and to challenge the fullest in-
vestigation, and in the result to offer the largest amount
of dividend he could honestly pay; and if that offer was
rejected, instantly to throw himself on the protection of
the court. The result of his weak yielding had been
that, having 15,0001. to pay 21,0001., he had com-
menced his commercial career afresh with a balance
against him of 6,0001. in money, and the discredit of
insolvency. The natural result was his present bank-
ruptcy. His next false step was that he had issued
written balance-sheets misrepresenting the state of his
affairs year after year up to December, 1850. The ex-
cuse off:red was that the statements were made for the
information of a Mr. Carlisle, who had lent him 4,000/.,
purchasing an option to introduce a relation into the
business if he thought fit, and he said that those ac-
counts were framed not so much for the purpose of
showing his exact state as to show Mr. Carlisle whether
it was improving, and that being the object he assumed
originally as the basis of his calculation the valuation
his creditors had adopted, and he had continued it
throughout that the accounts might be consistent; but
the answer to this was that he accutually encouraged,
or tacitly sanctioned, Mr. Carlisle going to the prin-
cipal wholesale dealers, of whom he was obtaining goods
on credit, and showing them these accounts. He (the
Commissioner) could not look upon this as any thing
short of wilful deception, and a deception of the worst
kind, because it was so likely to deceive. The next
complaint was that he ought to have stopped sooner,
and of this there could be no doubt. He had begun in
1849, 6,000/. worse than nothing, and gradually got worse
rather than better, and in Nov., 1850, had found him-
self so pressed for money to make his current payments
that he had been compelled to pledge 8001. worth of
goods with Mr. Hart, of St. Mary-axe, to raise 4701. In
April, 1851, he had pledged 5001. worth of goods in
the same way with another person; and in May and
June he pledged 2,0001. worth for 1,0501., 1,100/. worth
for 4901.. and 4,000/. worth for 1,800/. ; and on all these
loans he paid, as he said, from 15 to 20 per cent. inte-
rest. Besides this, he had made forced sales to the ex-
tent of 6,0001., at a loss of 1,0001., between the 18th
January and Bth May last, and on the 4th of June he
had stopped payment. How, under these circumstances,
could the Court do otherwise than acquiesce in the view
of the creditors, that he ought to have stopped sooner?
What ground of hope had he of ultimate rescue, begin-
ning with a deficiency of 6,0001., and making such
monstrous sacrifices to stave off the day of reckoning ?
Looking, then, at his conduct in 1847, when he under •
took to overpay his existing creditors, which the Court
could never regard in any other light than as a payment
of trust money to an old existing body out of the pockets
of a new body of creditors ; looking to his misstate-
ments to Mr. Carlisle, and his sanctioning the showing
those statements to his other creditors ; and looking to
his extravagant loans and forced sales in 1851, on the
very eve of bankruptcy, the Court could not do less, to
mark its reprobation of this conduct, than postpone his
certificate for two years from the date of the bank-
ruptcy, but protection would be given. It was due to
the bankrupt to say that his assets had realized upwards
of 8,000/. in August last; the other assets lied been re-
ceived, and that his debts were somewhat less than what
he owed in 1847. His books appeared to have been
accurately kept.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 15.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.)
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN WILLIAM PEARCE.
This insolvent, a dealer in jewellery, &c., in Oxford-
street, applied under the Protection Act. Mr. Nichols
opposed for a creditor named Kelly.
The ease was remarkable tor the hard swearing ex-
hibited.

A tailor named Reicholozer, in Red Lion-street, and a
person named Lewis, stated that they called on the in-
solvent about his acceptance given to a Mr. Shaw, who
required it cashed, and be stated that he had received
value for the bill in watches. On the faith of the state-
ment the bill was cashed. It now turned out to be an
accommodation bill.

The insolvent swore positively that he had no conver-
sation with the witnesses. Lie had never seen them, and
that what they had stated was false.
Mr. Commissioner Paimars expressed his horror at
the shocking perjury committed. He should be obliged
to follow the example set him in the superior courts, and
order Su iudictraeul for perjury.