The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-11 00:00:00

INSOLVENT CO U4T-(T HIS DAY

RE EDWARD HARRIS.
In this case the insolvent was described as a comedian, and
late Manager of the Victoria Theatre, residing at 46, Walcot-
square, Lambeth. His debts were stated at 411/. Is. 6d., and
his assets at 1:20/.

His petition had been already before the Court, and reported
in The Sun, when the final hearing of the ease was ordered to
stand tfor this day.
A young female, named Sarah. Hooper, applied, to the Court,
and stated that she had been in the insolvent's service for two
year, antl:a balance of 5/. 93. Bd. remained due for wages. Her
name had not been inserted in the schedule as a creditor. She
was aware that Mr.
.Harris had been labouring under great
pecuniary difficulty, and consequently did not wish to throw
the slightest obstruction in the way of his discharge ; but she
was anxious to know whether she would be entitled to claim in
case any assets might be available.
The Learned CHIEF COMMISSiONER ordered the schedule
to be amended by inserting the name and debt of Sarah Hooper,
and said to the insolvent that he hoped, in case any future suc-
cess attended his professional career, he would not be unmind-
ful of the kind disposition shown by her, in not offering any
opposition ; as if she did so, his immediate discharge could not
have been obtained.

The insolvent acknowledged the justice of the Learned Coin•
missioner's remarks, and said he should take care her debt
should be satisfied as soon as possible.
The COURT then ordered him to be discharged forthwith.
RE JAMES GILBERT.

The insolvent was a bOOlcsefle;;cl-Pui)lisher, trading under
the name of Gilbert and Grattan. His debts and liabilities
were stated to be very large, while it was considered there was
a quantity of assets which had not as yet become available to
the body of the creditors.
Mr. NICHOLLS, who appeared on behalf of Mr. Steven
John Russell, printer, of Paternoster-row, and several other
creditors, said the object of his clients was not so much to prof.
cure the remand of the insolvent as to cause an inquiry to be
instituted concerning certain mortgages and other documents
which it was alleged, had been executed so as to give an undue
preference to two or three creditors, to the almost total ex-
clusion of the rest.

It appeared that Mr. L. Smith, of the firm of Smith and
Chapman, 22, Paternoster-row, had supplied goods and ad-
vanced various sums of money to the insolvent, for which he
got a mortgage on the copyright of two atlases and certain
other plates, which he was about publishing, but which was
allowed to remain in his (the insolvent's) hands, and the copies
of ►which were worked or struck off it his name by Mr. Rus-
sell, the opposing creditor, who was also as,ignee to the estate,
and claimed debts for work done, to the amount of about 7001.
It was contended, on the part of the other creditors, thh al-
though some of them were aware that Mr. Smi h had sot security
to a certain amount, yet that they were not informed of the fact
of his having a mortgage on the property to the amount of
2,0001., and although no remand. was sought against the insol-
vent, yet that die interests of all the creditors required a close
and searching inquiry.
Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS said that, under the circum-
stances, the insolvent would of course be entitled to his dis-
charge, but he (Mr. Commissioner Reynolds) should consider
himself entitled to order the opposing creditor to be paid
the coat of this application from the funds of the estate.