Star.
London, England, 1824-02-03 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, FEB. 2.
-..1.-.-

Thomas Walter, an elderly man of respectable an.
pearance, came up to be heard on his petition to be
charged, and was opposed by Mr. Heath for Mary Walter,
Mr. Pou.omt, who was Counsel for the insolvent,
stated to the Court, that there was but one crediror,
named Mary Walter, in the insolvent's schedule, and slitr_
was his wife. He submitted to the Court, that a wife
could not oppose her husband's discharge.
Mr. HEATH said, the insolvent had put his wife's runt"
in the schedule as a creditor, from whose cl.riTri
sought to be discharged. Let him strike out her name
and she would not oppose. The facts of the case It
the insolvent's wife had sned him for alimony ia
Consistory Court of Litchfield, and obtained a Llectsr
of that Court against him, and there could be an
she was entitled, under the decree of that Cow t, to oppot
his discharge, otherwise the decree would he 3 nullitr.
The COURT asked Mr. Heath, could a wife °NH:it
her husband for having contracted a debt fi audulent:y
with her?

Mr. HEATH said, the opposition in the present ca:!
was Entirely confined to an inquiry into property, ai,l
he would be equally willing to have the wife's Ilit%e
left out of the schedule.

Mr. Pou.ocK said that could not be done; the Act
would not permit it if the insolvent were willing.
The COURT referred to the Act of Pat hament, by
which it appeared that an insolvent was required to in.
sett in his schedule " the names of ail persons to whom
he was indehted, or who to his know ledge or be;iej;
claimed to be his creditors."

The CHIEF Commtssioxert then said, it appeared to
him that, under the words of flee Act, the insolvent Wt
bound to insert in his schedule the name of his wife,
who had sued him in a competent Carnet, and obtairea
a decree of that Court for a debt against him; and her
name being inserted as a creditor, it was competent for
her so far to oppose his discharge as to obtain sati,fac-
tion on the subject of his property. If Mr. Polio
thought otherwise, the Court would be glad to heir
him argue the point.
Mr. POLLOCK declined entering into any argument.
Mr. HEATH then movei, that the case should be re.
ferred to the provisional assignee of the Court for i:,
vestigation, to report theresult to the Court, which nu.
tion was agreed to ar; a matter of coarse.

PALACE COURT, JANUARY 5).
HARNIs V. MASON.

This was an action to recover a compencaticn in ki.r.
mages for the negligent conduct of A drover:
The plaintiff i, an optician, at the corner of Drown.
low-street, Holborn; some bullo.:ks were being drivel
up the hill; when they arrived near the corner, one r:
them ran up Brownlow-street, the drover left the othe;
four, and went after it ; it stopped by the plaintiff's win•
dew, when the drover struck it on the head, and turned
it round, whereby the bind part of the beast broke the
window of the plaintiff; the defendanti who keeps the
Jolly Butchers, in Newport-Market, has seven badges,
with which be delegates men to cltiVe, and, of course,
any act committed by these men tie master is liable ler.
The drover was taken to Hatton-garden Police Office;
but the Magistrate's jatisdiction extending io
than twenty shillings, the plaintiff withdrew his sa6•
mons, and brought the present action.
Mr. Hastings, glazier, proved replacing the brrken
windows, the bill came to 51. 10s. Crown or Common
glass, would have cost 30;.
Mr. MANGLES, for the defence, contended that plate
glass, which cost 2/. 10s. per square, was not to be paid
for if broken by accident; if the plaintiff chose to make
such a display of his optical instruments by the gte4:l
expense of 2/. 10s. for each pane of his windows he, in
the case of an accident, must put up with the I.,ss (3
the difference between that and common glass. In the
present case it had l een clearly proved the damages
complained of had arisen pnrely from accident.' .
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the Jury found
a verdict—Damages 30s. thus giving him the value oi
common glass only.