Star.
London, England, 1825-09-30 00:00:00

Mr. Commissioner HARRIS Said that Mr. Wells
would now know more about his agent than he did
before. There was some conflicting evidence, but he
was bound to say it preponderated in favour of the In-
solvent, and he believed every one who heard the case
would be of the same' crinion as he was, namely= hit
Kent knew more about the Insolvent than he thought
proper to represent. There was, therefore, no ground
for refusing the relief the petitioner sought.
The Insolvent then received his discharge.
JcAn Golden, who prayed his discharge, was opposed
on behalf of his creditors, by Mr. Por.t.ootc, It ap-
peared from the evidence f the Insolvent, who was a
silk-manufacturer, that his premises had been twice
burned down, for which he was both times recompensed''
by his insurers. That on the night of the 20th of June,
1824, his house was entered, and that silk. Owe,
wearing apparel, and other aqicles were stolen therein
and made away with, and that they amounted in value,
according to the entry in his schedule, to 3004 That
on the night of the robbery he lost his watch dog, which
he always kept in the yard; and that about twenty days
afterwards he called a meeting cf his creditors, and
offered them 4s. in the pOund. That the robbery had
been effected without any noise, as none of the family
had been disturbed, and that the locks of the doors and
drawers said to have been forced, did not present the'
appearance of the necessary violence. It was contended
by Mr. Pollock, that under the circumstances of the
case, there was a making away and concealment of the
property on the part cf the Insolvent. But even ad-
mitting the story of the robbery to be true, and which
he considered fictitioes, yet the property said to be
stolen could never swell up in valgre a sum of COOL It
was, therefore, with the Court to decide, whether the
improbability of the story did not far surpass its pto-
babil:ty, and that the case carte under the 17th section
of the Act ?

Mr. HEATH, for the Insolvent, went into the evi-
dence at great length, and contended that every iota
of it went to e,tablish his client's innocence, and absolve
him from any design to cheat his cieJitors. The
whole thing was got up to prejudice the character of
the insolvent, and influence the mind of the Cott+ t un-
favourably towards him. It was cruel to make such
charge with so little foundation against a man borne
down with ill health and misfortune, having a family
of eight children to support by his future exeitions.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS said it was due to the
Insolvent to say, that the evidence adduced totally upset
the idea of his attempting to conceal and make away
with the property, for the robbery was most certainly
proved, but to what extent that had been he was not
called upon to say, or that he was satisfied with the
amount at which the loss was estimated; but it was,
however, his duty to rescue the Insolvent's character
from the slightest reflection that he had criminally
taken and concealed the property. It therefore did not
appear to the Court that a case was made out to de-
prive the insolvent of his discharge under the 17th
section of the Act.
The insolvent was then discharged, with orders to send in an exact
account of the property he had sold, together with the vouchers.