The Sun.
London, England, 1861-08-01 00:00:00

LAW IN

It

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
(Before ;Mr. Commissioner Nichols.)
THE GALWAY CONTRACT—IN RE GEORGE
O'MALLEY IRWIN.
This insolvent, described as a barrister-at-law,
whose name has been frequently before the public
in reference to the Royal Atlantic Steam Naviga-
tion Company, appeared under the Protection Act.
Mr. Sargood opposed, on the part of Mr. John
Orrell Lever, M.P. ; Mr. Sturgeon supported ; Mr.
Peverley, of Coleman-street, being attorney for the
insolvent.
An application was made, on the case being
called, by Mr. Sturgeon to postpone the case
until December, as there were some documents
to be examined, and Mr. Irwin stated that he
expected to obtain some funds from friends
in Ireland to pay the costs of the nonsuit, for which
lib had been arrested by Mr. Lever, and discharged
out of custody a few weeks ago by this Court. The
insolvent added, that he intended to proceed with
his claims against Mr. Lever for services rendered
in the promotion of the Galway Packet Company.
It was also stated by the learned counsel for the
insolvent, that the insolvent had a petition of right,
and a settlement was expected by which ke would
be enabled to pay the costs claimed by Mr. Lever.
All he wanted was an adjournment until the
December sittings.
Mr. Sargood apprehended that no ground had
been shown for the application, and complained of
the insolvent's conduct towards Mr. Lever.
Mr. Commissioner Nichols said, as the applica-
tion was objected to, he could not grant it, and
therefore the case had better proceed.
The insolvent then underwent, a long examina-
tion by Mr. Sargood, and from his statement it
appeared that in the first action he brought
against Mr. Lever for services the jury gave
£l,OOO damages. There was a new trial, and,
after an intimation from the jury, his counsel,
Mr. Digby Seymour, elected to be nonsuited.
The costs were £262, and he had been arrested
for the same and taken to prison. There was
another action, and the record had been with-
drawn. The insolvent admitted that, since his
discharge by the Court, he had presented a peti-
tion to the House of Commons, through Mr. Con-
ingham, and the committee was not named be-
cause Mr. Lever stated that the statements had
reference to matters before he was a member of
Parliament.
Mr. Commissioner Nichols said he had nothing
to do with the petition presented to Parliament.
All he had to do with was the debt in the sche-
dule, which was for costs of a nonsuit.
Mr. Sargood wished to show the animus of the
insolvent towards Mr, Lever. It had been a sys-
tem of malicious persecution against a gentleman
in every possible manner, and it still continued.
It further appeared that yesterday the insol-
vent had been at the Westminster Police-court
against 'Mr. Lever, on a charge of libel contained in
a pamphlet, in which he had stated that he had
been " victimised by an impostor." The secretary
of Mr. Lever was not produced, and, as the charge
was not sustained, the summons was dismissed.
The proceedings in the action " Irwin v. Lever"
were put in evidence, and Mr. Gilding, clerk to
Messrs. Valiance and Valiance, the attorneys for
Mr. Lever, was examined en the subject. Mr. Lever
had been examined, as well as the insolvent and
other witnesses in the law proceedings. Mr. Lever
was not now in attendance.
Mr. Sargood made an energetic speech on the
part of Mr. Lever, complaining of the persecution
of that gentleman by the insolvent, and of the
groundlessness of the pretended claim made by the
insolvent. He submitted that the debt for the costs
had been improperly contracted, and that the in-
solvent was not entitled to further protection.
Mr. Sturgeon commented on the absence of Mr.
Lever on the present occasion, and urged that the
insolvent was entitled to his continued protection.
The insolvent believed that he had a claim against
Mr. Lever, and vas anxious to pay the costs of the
nonsuit that he might proceed with the matter. He
denied that the gentleman now before the Court
was influenced by the motives described by his
learned friend.
Mr. Commissioner Nichols, in giving his opinion,
observed that he had to look at the debt due to Mr.
Lever on the schedule. was for costs on a non-
suit. In order to show that the debt had been in-
curred without reasonable expectations of payment,
or in other words that it was a vexatious action,
there must be some evidence given to show that the
insolvent had no ground for his action. Now he could
say, as the insolvent claimed for services, there was
no evidence given except by him, that he had no
right to bring the action. His opinion was that
the evidence would not warrant him on arriving at
the conclusion that it was a vexatious action, and
therefore he should appoint a day for the final
order, and renew the protection.
The final order was appointed for Dec. 4.
to-

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.