The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-07 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY._rr HIS DAY.)
(B,fore Mr. Conunis-,ioner SHEPHERD.)
insolvent,
IN itE mAni.E v.—LIABILITY OF HUSBANDS. ii°who was a Lieut.-Colonel in the royal Ma-
e', ealpe up for bit final order. An endeavour had been
to arrange with the creditors, but there being several
disputed debts the iiegotiqion went off: Air. Sturgeon appeared on behalf of three creditors, and the
insolvent waa supiwtecl ty Mr. Cooke.
The ficts were these. In January, 1842, the insot.yent se-
parated from his wife, and made her a weekly allowance.
After that time, lio,xever, the tradesmen who bad previously
tipplied the defendant continued to furnish goods at the
!anise in Wilton-place. The deed of separation was not en-
teral into till September, 1843.
Mr. STURGEON contended that as no notice had been given
to tilt creditors, they were entitled to prove for the amount
of their respectivee debts ; and in one case in particular the
insolvent was bound for, although there was a separation,
"e of the insolvent's daughters residing with her mother.
The insolvent was examined, and said that he left active
service in Malta, in 1839. He then found his wife living in
house in Wilton-place, and she represented to him that she
had, as his agent, obtained the lease for him; but he after-
iris parted from her, as he had reason to beieve she bad en unfaithful to him. An action had been brought in con-
se_ quence against a certain party, but it had been dropped,
And the deed of separation signed.
toslbh: Learned COMMISSIONER said that it was clear that,
ace`l'llog to the principle of law, after the separation
.the
nd was not liable, nor was it necessary to give notee,
he thought that in this case, where a husband left his
o.,t:r...Thit to give
house although he allowed her a sufficiency, he
give notice.
_ • STURGEON said that at all events the full debt was:clue
al
,n the daughter was living.
t the insolvent said that he had corrected her for her int-
-I.l,lriet!." ,• she left his house for three months, but he would
otTare to Heaven that he did not know where she was, and
,:tof.lt her home again in order to save herfrom destruction.
be .'a'e Learned ComussioNEn said that the insolvent would
_ ble for any debt contracted for the daughter with his
rve.nirncti).ki,itlabut here it was. distinctly sworn that she was not
him, nor did he know where she was ; that debt,
umei°,,re, Could not be allowed.
due'r. voGicE said they were willing to admit all the debts
to the date of the deed of separation, on a principle
v'ias'ice, that as the insolvent had left his wife in the house
trl4l),ied by him they should have had notice, but at the same
ei,._.n.onie of the creditors had been dealing with Mrs. Marley
Burin the insolvent's absence on service.
inipp,,e,C°mNitssioNEß said that up to that time there was an
trae;" agoncy on the part of the wife. After the separation
tea e.men
the could not recover from the husband or wife, and
refore ought not to give credit.
,isTr• STURGEON then urged that in the case of Mr. Tuck,
irn was disallowed, the name should be era..,ed.
e Learned COII3ILSSIONER said be could not allow that-
- would b - .
. e lending himself to a party to bring a vexatious
kn la another court. The claim had been disallowed.
stalidr. CooKE contended that it was a clear case that it should
sameal a disputed debt disallowed. In bankruptcy the
principle existed for the protection of the bankrupt.
not nr.--"JRGEON said that in bankruptcy, if a creditor did
eate:-tre his debt, and the bankrupt did not get his certifi-
Thel.'; legal remedy to recover it still remained.
the A kA93istissioNErt said it would be against the policy of
A :11115'8110w the claim to be struck.
It .was mer's debt for 148/. was also disputed.
...was ultimately arranged that the insolvent should allow
g year out of his half-pay. The debts were about 5001