Star.
London, England, 1830-12-02 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORr COURT, Dec. I.

Edward Chinery, described as late of Wilton place, Knightsbridge,
gentleman, came up to be beard in the matter of his petition, when his
discharge was opposed by Mr. Cezawm.s, on behalf of John
Hunter, Ksq.
Mr. BARRY opposed for a Mr. Paton, and Mr. COOKE supported the
petitioner.
The insolvent had been before the Court in June hat, when his
petition was dismissed on account of having disposed of property
which he h..d not accounted for; and he came up again this day on a
new order for hearing.
The insolvent underwent a long and rigid examination, from which it
appeared that upon the death of his father he became possessed of con.
siderable property, situated at Sudbury, in Suffolk, consisting of landed
estates of the value of 8,0001. This property the insolvent mortgaged
to the amount of 6,6001. and among the mortgagees was the opposing
creditor, Mr. Hunter who claimed 1,2001. The insolvent had bon re-
commended to him through the agency of a Mr. ltlanning. After the
money had been advanced, it was discovered that the estates had been
previously mortgaged, which, by a strange oversight of the solicitor for
the mortgage creditor, had not been before inquired into, nor was the
insolvent ever questioned on the subject.
The insolvent was particularly interrogated respecting the disposal of
the various sums of money he had received. He said that he had paid
on his brother's account, who had gone out to India, the sum of 1,000).
by way of outfit ; and for the general maintenance of his mother and
brothers, 2,4001. For board and lodging since his imprisonment, 1801.
He stated that his law expenses within three years amounted to 6501.
and for gunpowder and shot he paid 2001.
From Mr. Butity's opposition it appeared, that his client, Mr.
Paton, held two bills of exchange, in amount 2331. drawn by a
named Wood, accepted by the insolvent, and by Wood en.
I)elorlised" to Mr. Paton. When the bills became due, they were
dishonoured, and an action was commenced in the Court of King's
Bench against the insolvent, to which he pleaded the general issue.
At the trial, Sir James Searlett held a brief for the defence, but
called no witness ; and the plaintiff having called two persons. named
Wood and Croft, the former of whom proved an advance of money by
the drawer, Lord Tenterden stopped the learned gentleman (Sir James
Barlett) as he was about to address the jury, and said there was no de.
fence. The Jury accordingly returned a verdict for the opposing cre.
ditor, for 2791. being the amount of the debt and costs.
The record was then put in, and it was stated that if judgment had
gone by default, the costs would not have been so much by 261.
The insolvent was afterwards examined by 'Mr. BARRY, relative to
the avail of several articles of valuable property after his arrest
namely, a valuable musical gold war4h, a picture, two hones, a dog.
cart, a sporting dog, and a dbunong ring.
The insolvent admitted that he had disposed of them, and said that
they were worth about 3001. This was all the property he possessed
beyond his landed estates, which were heavily
The insolvent was then examined by his couinnsertgl,lilf:.doomr. He
stated that he came of age in 1822, and was possessed of considerable
property. His mother had nose. There were five in family, who all
depended on him for support. He had lent a certain person 3,oool.which
he considered a' bad debt; after this be never had sufficient to support
the establishment. He considered his propaty, at the time he came
of age, to have been worth 8,0001. Mr. Manning introduced him to
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Manning did not ask him if the estates were encurn.
bered. The deeds were in the possession of the family's solicitor. Mr.
Wood wu known u a iv. Insolvent hada taste for play. Wood told him
he had starteda new house in Piekaing's.place, St. James's, and present.
ing him with a card, solicited his patronage. He went, and the first
person he saw was Wood, acting as groom-porter. Wood and Croft
were dealing out cards : be played, and being rather flush of cub, he
lost from 401. to 601. Knowing him, they requested him to take what
money be wanted, and handed him money from time to time out of the
bank, until it amounted to a considerable sum • be, however, continued
unsuccessful, and It was at length reposed that bills should be drawn'
to the amount of 3221. which he agreed to at Ids own hose._.
Croft afterwards brought them, sad he them; Croft stating that
if he should not be able to take them up, he would egoist him.
Mr. Commissioner Bestow said, that after a steamiest like this, be
thought the opposing creditor, Mr. Paton had but weak grounds for
maintaining a vexatious defence.
To a question by Mr. BARRY, the insolvent replied, that there were
only two or three persons present when the bank Set advanced him
money.
The Learned Gentleman then addressed the Court, and contended that
the insolvent had vexatiously defended the action, that he had been
lavish In his expenditure, and had parted with property after his anat..-
an act which thh Court could never justify.
Mr. Casswzr.t followed, and contended that the insolvent had
practised a fraud upon. Mr. Hunter,who would never receive one farthing
of his 1,2001.
Mr. Cools said, that if the case was so as had been reps.sensed, it was strangethat they had not called Mr. Hunter to prove, if
he could, any fraudulent representations on the part of the insolvent.
The fact was otherwise. The insolvent bad never been questioned
Iby Mr. Manning on the subject of 'membrane:a. The estates had
since been put up to auction, and sold foe 6,3001. but the sale can•
not be completed until a person competent to sign the deed be ap.
pointed, when Mr. Hunter will be paid every shilling.
Mr. Commissioner Bowxx said, that he was himseff somewhat sm.
prised that Mr. Hunter had not been put into the box, and be thought
it would be too much to say that the insolvent had acted fraudulently
towards him. With respect to the plea, he could not think it a vessel-
ous defence, but as regaed the sale of the property after his arrest, in
that the insolvent was not justified : for this he should think it his duty
to remand him for a short period when be came before the Court for ed.
judication.
Judgment postponed on account of a defect In the adverthement.—
Adjourned sine die.