The Sun.
London, England, 1827-09-20 00:00:00

PRICH 7D.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, SEPT. 19.

Lionel Prager Goldsmid, Esq., who was before
the Court on the 18th ult., was brought up from
the Fleet prison for re-hearing,.
At the original investigation the insolvent was
opposed by Messrs. BARRY and BODKIN, on behalf
of a variety of creditors, and the case then was in-
quired into at unusual length. At the original hear-
ing it was arranged that the insolvent should be re-
manded sine die, to perfect his services of notice
upon his creditors.
Mr. Pou.ockc, who had not been previously re-
tained in. the case, understood that a question had
arisen at the last hearing relative to the removal of
the insolvent from the Fleet prison to Maidstone
gaol, and from the latter prison to his former resi-
dence in the Fleet. The Court then, as he (Mr.
Pollock) had been informed, were of opnion that
the insolvent was not removed by
his own request,
or at his own instance, and therefore that part of the
case was dismissed. The learned gentleman then
entered into a detail of circumstances which be con-
sidered sufficient to remove the prior impression of
the Court, because he was informed that the habeas
corpus was issued at the instance of the petitioner.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER said, if the learned
Counsel could show that the previous statements
made by the petitioner or his witnesses were incor-
rect, he was right in his application, or if ho could
show that there was any fraud or concealment of
property, then he might proceed, but unless he could
do so, the case could not be re-argued.
Mr. HEATII.-1, hare no objection to my Learned
Friend stating any thing he can prove.
Mr. POLLOCK said, that some of the parties who
could show that he had ground for his argument,
had been subpoenaed, but he was informed that some
of them refused to attend; and as he should call

limn, if they did not answer, the Court could deal
with them. as it thought proper.
Mr. James Graham Lewis, clerk to the solicitors

for the insolvent, was interrogated at great length
relative to a conversation which passed in the open
street, between him and Mr. Hayward, as to the
writ of Habeas Corpus; but the witness, fearful of
betraying confidential communications, declined an-
swering, unless the Court compelled him to do so.
The COURT said, that if the 'conversation passed
between Mr. Hayward and Mr. Lewis, as Mr. Lewis
simply, then the testimony required ought to be
given; but if it passed to Mr. Lewis as the clerk of
Messrs. Shearman and Freeman, in a confidential
way, it ought not to be received.
Mr. Pou.ocx—May I Rot ask the witness what
he said himself to induce a reply from Mr. Hay-
ward ?—Collurr—l think not.
Mr. HEATH.—Whatever Mr. Lewis heard, lie
heard from an adverse party, and ought he to give
that testimony against the client of his employers ?
—The witness then said, that the first intimation he

had of an action being brought, and the writ issued,
was in consequence of a document sent to the office
of his employers. Witness knows Mr. Hayward
and Mr. Noel, and thinks the brief (produced) is
endorsed by the latter : it was never put into the
hands of Mr. Barry, on the late occasion, by his
connivance.

George Ince, clerk to Messrs. Alexander and Spa,
proved that he had served, or attempted to serve,
subpwnas upon Mr. Hayward, Mr. Noel, and Mr.
Purdy.
Mr. Noel, an attorney, in Ormond-street, issued
the writ of habeas callous at the instance of Mr.
Purdy ; but he (witness) used the name of Mr.
Hayward, because he was an attorney in the Court
in which the action was originally brought.

Cross-examined.—The ahem; was issued to re-
move the insolvent from Maidstone, before he was
removed from the Fleet prison to the former gaol..
[A voice.—Then that was a speedy habeas to all
intents and purposes.]—(Laughter.)
Witness continued.—l declare that my only mo-
tive of giving the brief to oppose the insolvent, was
to ascertain what had become of his reversionary
property, both for the satisfaction of myself and my
client. lam a creditor for a considerable amount.
Mr. BARRY, although he opposed the insolvent
for Mr. Purdy, considered that the time and manner
in which the brief was given appeared a little extra-
ordinary.
Mr. Noel declared that there was no imposition;
the fact was, that the brief was intended for Mr.
Heath, but finding that gentleman retained for Mr.
Goldsmid, he bought a sheet of paper, and put an
endorsement on it to Mr. Barry.
Mr. BARRY—I thought myself justified in making
the remarks I have, but you may have your brief.
Mr. Noel—You may keep it; I believe the fee is
paid.—(A laugh.)
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Mr. Noel you have
given your evidence very satisfactorily, but I am sure
that observation might have been spared. Mr. Barry
has acted perfectly proper.
Mr. POLLOCK—Why, Sir (addressing the Court)
we all know that the constant practice among us is
not to return the brief till the fee is paid.—
(Laughter.)
The petitioner was then examined relative to a
transaction between him and Mr. Oldfield, a wine-
merchant, in Pall-mall, to whom he had paid 2,0144
borrowed money, for the purposes of the Welsh
estate, near Abergavenny; he was now indebted to
that gentleman 1001.
Cross-examined—Has heard that Mr. Oldfield
has other professions or establishments beyond the
wine concern; is aware that many persons differ in
opinion from him (witness), but in the hoer of need,
}Niilsr.(oinlsdotilyceldnetor)arwisimfoi,ttoedndthheo 1001.,ad great°y reasonil'gtot
o
feel grateful to him.
Mr.B
ry
hostileat i stothe
Court nature,
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER remarked upon the
„se by a preliminary observation, that with the ex-
ceptionexplanatory rathersome
observations
an
of a creditor not having been served in due
time, there was no reason why the insolvent should
of n
an n
ern havingi
Inot receive an instanter discharge. The case had
been previously investigated at great length, and all
the facts connected with it elicited only that which
exculpated the petitioner from an imputation of
moral fraud, and there had been no pretence act up
that he had concealed property from the view of the
persons who opposed him.
The Conn, then ordered Mr. Goldsmith to come
up for his discharge so soon as he should be able to
perfect his schedule.

SINGULAR ESCAPE.--In our paper of
Thursday,
deathaugacopied from a contemporary a
staeting that a child had been crushed
Over its body,
in the meadow at the foot of Salisbury Crags.
tparrsdpayl 1): we
a•stone roller passing
The child is a girl seven years old, and we learn
that the roller passed not only over her body, but
he
the moment life seemed to be extin-
guished. A considerable time elapsed before
medical advice was procured ; but it was found,
on examination, that, notwithstanding the great
pressure to which her person had been exposed,
rhead,
at yet, wonderful to relate, she survives,
though
no bones were broken. The accident happened
on Sunday, and on Wednesday she was com-
pletely recovered, and running about As usual.
The proprietors of these machines ought to take
some precaution to prevent such accidents in
future.r-Edinkrgh Courant.