Star.
London, England, 1824-08-19 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, AUGUST la.

_„.
James Richards, farmer, of Sharpcliffe, Statrordshile,
was remanded for seven months trom the date of Jai
petition, for undue prelerence in favour of his farnilr.
John Gunton was opposed by Mr. Turner, who state;

that he had entered into an agreement with the
vent, which he produced, for the purchase of improve,/,
rents, which were to arise from houses the insolvent v.:I,
at the time building in Surrey. The agreement via 3,
that when the houses should be finished, the insolvent
should assign the lease of the ground from the free.
holder to Mr. Turner, and should take the lease of t!le
houses from him at an improved rent. On this agree.
ment Mr. Turner paid a deposit of about 3001. When
the houses were finished, he demanded of the insolvent
the fulfilment of his agreement, and then found it was
not in his power to complete it, as, after taking Mr.
Turner's deposit, he had mortgaged the houses to ano-
ther person.—Remanded for eight months from the
date of his petition.
James dc Thierry,late of Cambridge, came up on his
petition to be discharged. The insolvent is a very dap-
per little gentleman, of very delicate address. No one
appeared to oppose his discharge ; bin the following
colloquy passed between the insolvent and the Coutt.
The insolvent had been arrested by his tailor.
What are you .at Cambridge? Nothing at all, Sir.—What, no.
thing? No, Sir, my brother is a Collegian there.—What age arc
you? I was just coming to twenty.one in last December.—Are
entitled to anything ? No, Sir, not anything now, and I do:1.!
know that I may be entitled to anything.—ls your father livivg?
Yes, Sir.—And have you no allowance? None whati.oever.—Were
you brought up to nothing? I was not, Sir, brought up to anythuv.
...What is your father?—(We did not distinctly heat the answer
this question.)—What is your elder brother ?—My elder bruth;•r.
Oh, he is a—oh, he is—nothing at all. Ile was going into Mt
' church. I was not of ass when I had the clothes.

That, Sir, is a very shabby excuse for not paying for them. Yon
kept them and wore them, you know.—The insolvent signified
that be did. and added that he endeavoured to make an arrange-
ment with his creditors.

The Cowl? then intimated that his conduct was very
discreditable, and that his family ought to pay his debts.
The insolvent was then discharged.
Lieutenant George Mackenzie, of the 14th Regiment
of Foot, came up on his petition to be discharged. The
insolvent was not opposed. It appealed that he vras
indebted to Mr. George Pearson, of Ambleside, in the
sum of 1201. by bills drawn on Cox, Greenwood, and
Co. army agents. He had made an assignment in 1819
or 1820, of a reversionary interest in the 6 per Cent.
Stock to a Mr. Codd. The Court was unwilling to ap-
point Mr. Codd as the assignee under the Court, upon
legal grounds, as some disputes might arise between
himself and the other creditors. But it seemed inclined
to waive this objection, and asked Mr. Codd if he would
use due diligence respecting Mr. Pearson 's d,:bt? Mr.
Codd said he could not go into the insolvent's estate on
, account of the trouble.—The Court observed that it was
I the duty of an assignee to collect debts, and minutely
investigate the insolvent's affairs. It therefore appointed
another person as assignee. In the course of the exami-
nation Mr. Codd applied to have some part of the in-
solvent's half-pay appropriated for the benefit of his
creditors; but the Court thought, as it was only 80!.
a-year, provided the insolvent lived prudently in future,
he could not spare much out of so limited an income.—
The insolvent, in answer to a question put by the COU7t,
said he had no other dependence.—No order affecting
his half-pay was made, and the insolvent was discharged