The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 30
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)

IN THE MATTER OF TUE HON. ADOLPIIUS FREDERICK
CHARLES TIOLYNEUX CAPEL.

In July last the insolvent applied to this Court for
protection. His petition was refused. He bad re-
sided at Theyden House, Epping, and contracted
debts and liabilities to the amount of 32,000/. He
had no assets, but it was said that, out of court, an
offer of 2s. 6d. in the pound, proposed to be raised by
means of friends, had been refused by the creditors.
A few weeks since an affidavit was presented to the
Court, setting forth that he had been residing for
some time at No. 4, Wilton-street, Grosvenor-
square, unmolested by his creditors, and praying that
he might be heard under the 28th section, on an ap-
plication for a final protecting order. The prayer
was granted, and he now came up accordingly.
Mr. Nicholls (with whom was Mr. Sturgeon) sup-
ported ; Mr. Dowse and Mr. Sargood appeared on
behalf of a number of creditors ; Mr. Bagley opposed
on behalf of Mrs. Woodhouse, of Toxteth-park, near
Liverpool, a creditor for 4,0001.
The insolvent was examined by Mr. Dowse, and
said he had been residing at the house of Mr. John
Joseph Josvett, who was a creditor for 568/., on ac-
count of which he held NHS of exchange. After a
stay of eight days at Mr. Jowett's, he went by an
early morning train for Dover en route to
France. He stopped at an hotel at Calais a
few days; then at an hotel at Boulogne
for about six - weeks ; then at an hotel,
and with his sister at her residence at Paris.
He returned to England a little before the middle of
November. During that time he visited England
twice, once in July, and the other time in October.
On the occasion of the first visit he arrived in Dover
on a Saturday morning, went to Brighton that after-
noon, and left Brighton on Monday night.
When at Brighton, he stopped at the Bedford
Hotel. On the second visit he came over to
Folkestoiie on a Sunday morning. The first
visit was on pleasure, the second on business.
When he returned to England in November he
went direct from the railway station to lodg-
ings at Mrs. Andrews's, Ne. 4, WiltOn• street.
He had resided before at 4, Wilton street, and been
known by the name of Mr. Cuthbert. On this oc-
casion he took lodgings in his own name. He had
resided and slept there ever since, except a few das 8
when he had been out visiting. lie had never
given instructions to Mrs. Andrews to deny him.
Thomas Clarke, ef Museum-street, Bloomsbury,
said he was a process-server, and after having made
fruitless inquiries at 86, Ebury-street and in Bond-
street, he inquired at No. 4, Wilton-street, and
was told that Mr. Capel was not known there.
About a week since he applied at Mr. Lewis's, the
insolvent's solicitor, but could not get his address.
Mr. DOWSE submitted that the insolvent was not
entitled to his protecting order under the section in
the 7th and Bth Victoria. The statute required that
the insolvent whose protection was refused on his
first hearing should place himself in the hands of his
creditors. In place of doing so he had been to France.
His evidence was now that he had visited England
twice. The evidence did not bear out his affidavit.
Reckless as he had been in contracting debts, he had
not evinced sufficient caution in making his affidavit.
His affidavit set forth that he had twice visited Bog.,
land, and that he had walked about the streets 01
London without concealment.
The insolvent explained that the passage respect..
ing his walking in the streets of London had refer-
ence to the period when he resided in London.
Mr. DOWSE would submit, notwithstanding this
explanation, that if a gentleman, no matter in what
position of life, was thus careless in making an
affidavit, he was not entitled to explicit reliance, in
other statements that he might make. His affidavit
further set forth that he returned to take up his resi-
dence in London on the Ist of November. His evi-
dence that day fixed the date at about or a little
before the middle of November. The insolvent said
he had been about London Why, •
a man might be
about London in such guises and at such hours as
would effectually place him out of the power of his
creditors. It should have been shown by other evi-
dence than his own that he had not sought to conceal
himself from them. There was not the slightest
evidence to show that any of his creditors knew where
he was to be found, or that he had made known to
them his whereabouts.
Mr. BAGLEY could not help regretting that the in•
solvent had not, in mercy to himself and in mercy to
his friends, avoiding bringing his unfortunate con-
duct again before the
public. if his affidavits had
stated fully what had been his conduct since the last
hearing, he was persuaded that the Court would not
have acceded to his petition to be again heard that
day. Not a single creditor resided in Dover, Folk-
stone, or Brighton, the places which he had visited
on pleasure or business. He was asked if he had
seen any of his creditors, and his answer was
" No." He was asked if he had endeavoured to
make any arrangement with bis creditors, and his
answer was " No." His petition virtually was to be
again heard, because since the 12th of July he had
not been arrested. He had not given the cre-