Star.
London, England, 1823-09-23 00:00:00

INSOLPENT DEBTORS' COURI-TIIIS DAY-

On the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr. Pon-
LOCK made a motion on behalf of Lord CHARLES SPEW..
cgs CHURCHILL, who has been for sometime a prisoner
for debt, in the King's Bench prison, and whose Peti-
tion to be discharged under the Insolvent Act, has been
for some weeks filed in Court, prayitg that the time for
filing his Lordship's schedule might be enlarged. The
motion was grounded on the affidavit of Mr. Jobson,
his Lordship's Attorney, which stated, that since his
Lordship's Petition was filed, the deponent had Ire-,
quently attended him, for the purpose of preparing his
schedule, and had always found him so much indis-
pored as to be wholly unable to give the necessary in-
structions, being generally confined to his bed by the
severity of his indisposition.—The motion was granted
as a matter of course.

Yesterday, Hamilton Collins SonpLill was opposed h)
Mr. HEAT% on behalf of Mr. Picketing, who stated that
he resides at Hackney, and employed the insolvent as hi.
steward and agent. on an estate in Cheshire, in the year
1821, having received a high character of him from Sit
William Cunyngham Fair be. The insolvent lit some
time conducted himself highly to Mr. Picket ins satis-
fitction ; he made a survey of the river Mersey, and
pointed out considerable improvements in the salmon
fishery of the river, in which Mr. Pickering was highly
interested. Mr. Pickering having some reason to be dis-
satisfied with the insolvenes conduct, wrote to him from
London, on the 21st of March, 1821, countermanding
the insolvent's authority to receive any more rent on his
account, ttie receipt of which the insolvent acknow-
ledged by a letter dated the 27th March, but continue.)
to receive the rents' to the Bth of April, when Mr.. Pick-
ering went down to his estate. The insolvent Om re-
fused to pay over the money he had received, and Mr.
Pickering brought an action against him, and obtained
a verdict by consent, for 135/. having allowed the insol-
vent every sum he had paid, and 351. for his services
for the half year he was in his employment. The ins..l-
- gave receipts witho❑t dat.cs, for the rents he re-
ceived after his authority was countermanded.
The insolvent was examined in explanation by Mr.
CooKE, and stated that there was no agreement between
him and Mr. Pickering, and that 501. was no more than
an adequate remuneration for his services, in making a
survey of the river Mersey, and 501. for his services on
the estate, instead of which he was allowed but S5l. on
the trial for his whole services.

Mr. HEATH addressed the Court in aggravation.
Mr. COOKE for the insolvent.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER pronounced the judgment
of the Court. The insolvent's receiving rents after he
had received Mr. Pickering's letter, countermanding his
authority, was, he said, a deliberate act of fraud, and
called for severe animadversion. The judgment of the
Court was, that he should not be discharged till he had
been imprisoned at the suit of Mr. Pickering sixteen
months from the date of filing his petition ; and that he
should be imprisoned within the walls of the prison.
John Lee, a publican, was opposed by his brother and
another creditor iri person. In the course of the inves-
tigation of this case, which displayed the existence of
much bad feeling towards each other between the bro-
thers, it appeared that the insolvent had made declara-
tions of his intention to pay his opposing creditors
nothing; and that, having received i.:50 from his At-
torney while in prison, he remained two months longer
in confinement, during which time he expended the £5O,
and then filed his petition, instead of having done so at
9tlce, and divided the money •so far as it went, fairly
amongst his creditors.
The Couttr, on these grounds, remanded the insol-
vent for six months,, and ordered him to be confined

within the walls of the prison.
John Elgie, opposed by Mr. PoLLocc, on behalf of
the executors of Henry Savory, was remanded to obtain
the consent of three-fourths of his creditors-to his dis-
charge;.he having entered into security for another per-
son within the period of five years from the date of his
former discharge under the Act.
Mr. William Eark was opposed by Mr. lIEATfi, on
behalf of Mr. Striven.

The insolvent stated, that he was recent proprietor of
the East London Theatre, where, by unfortunate events,
he became bankrupt ; after which he was a literary cha-
racter. Sir John Perring was a considerable creditor
when the Commission was issued, and that Gentleman
used his influence to render his condition comfortable,
and through his influence, coupled with that of other
Gentlemen of civic consideration, he obtained a situa-
tion in the British Commercial Insurance Company,
Cornhill, where he received a per tentage on the shares.
His receipts from this Institution were 901. and 1251.
Afterwards he was engaged by Lord Strathmore—from
him he received 1001. at the outset, and he stipulated to
receive 5001. a year salary, to arrange his Lordship's
affairs, which sum he had actually received. Since his
bankruptcy he had received 7001. and contracted debts
to the same amount, as he stated—but his schedule ex-
hibited other larger sums, in the shape of liabilities,
which increased the aggregate.
On inspection it wined out that there were several
inaccurate statements in the insolvent's schedule and
halance-sheet•—hence the Court intimated that the case
must be adjourned, in order that the documents might
be put in a more tangible shape.
The insolvent attempted to exculpate himself on the
ground of ignorance of the !tiles of the Court, but the
Commissioners told him it was a mere matter of figures
connected with common sense, and it was surprising
that a person who had conducted a Company, and filled
a respectable commercial situation, and also had been
in another situation of. high trust, under Lord Strath-
more, should attempt to shield himself with such a sub
terfuge. The insolvent again attempted to speak in
explanation, when
The Canty COMMISSTOXER handed to him a docu-
ment he had signed, which .he said was his hand-writ-
ing—when the Court informed him, that if he would
unwittingly sign papers he must take the consequences
of his want of mature deliberation. •
The insolvent was remanded generally, and ordered
to give four days' notice to Mr. Heath's client, and also
to -Mr. Hubert,•who appeared to oppose in persons

A letter received.yesterday from Valencia, dated the
6th instant, gates, that the Fiends had sustained a re-
pulse before Tarragona. The utmost ditcord prevailed
in all the towns in the eA of Spain, between the Fr. tech
and the party of the Regency. j ,
COUNT LAS CASES' JoURt'A L.—We are requisted
state, that this important and interesting Wolk ie now
concluded, by the publication of the Seventh 'and Eighth
Parts ; and those who have not yet .cntr.iplefed their.
Sets are requested tbmake applkalion to their respec-
tive Booksellers.