Star.
London, England, 1822-09-06 00:00:00

INSOLVENT I)1:137ORS' COURT.

Yesterday, James Harris carne up on his petition
to he discharged.
This insolvent was examined on two former
on the last of which it was adjourned that he might
prodtice a witness of the name of Carter, to whom he
said he had paid a sum
.of money. The insblver:
stated this day that he could not fiat' Ca: ter, who, law
heard, had gone to Holland.
Mr. HEATH, the Counsel against the resolve
examined a witness, who stated that he had inquired
for Carter where the insolvent said he had lived, and
was answered by a person resident in the house forty
years, that no such person had been known there
during that time.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER, on hearing this ev:-
dence, proceeded to pronounce the judgment of the
Court, in which he recapitulated the principal fact;
of the case. The insolvent, he said, had been'first
examined on the 13th of July, when he stated that L
had been a cheesemonger at Bayswater, and had sold
his furniture to a person named Slteene, in April. for
£55, and his stock in trade and business at the same
time, to a person named Woodmaster, for C 37,
of which sums he paid to a person of the name ui
Carter, from whom he bad borroWed £9O, twelve
months before, and who lived at No. 2, Crown-court,
Broad-street.. On that occasion witnesses were pro-
duced, who proved that the business was carried on
in the insolvent's-shop by his wife, since the time Le
stated he had sold it, apparently in the same manmr
as before the time oldie sale. The case was adjourned
in consequence, that Wood master might be prod
On the .6th of August, Woodmaster was exaniinec!,
and stated in his examination in chief, that lie had
purchased the insolvent's shop and stock on the '26th
of April : that he had for some time been desirous of
'entering into such a business ;. and li.tviaL seen the
,insolvent's advertised for sate, he applied to Al% Pear-
son, to whom the advertisement directed, and was by
him referred to the in,,olvent, with whom he agreed
to take the stock at a valuation, which was accordingly
made by two brokers, and came to 1:37, which he paid.
lie had since employed the insolvent's wife to carry
on the business, paying her wages and taking the
profit. No one, said the Learned Commissioner,who
had heard this witness's statement in chief, and knew
no more of the facts, could have doubted tile troth
of his story ; but he underwent a long cross-exami-
nation; in which he stated that he lived on a life an-
nuity; and had never been concerned in trade, acs
ever, before he saw the advertisement, had taken any
steps for the purpose; that he had been acquainted
with the insolvent's wife four years, and frequently
.visited at his house; that he had been consulted about
advertising the business, and had been shewn the ad-
vertisement by the insolvent the day before it war
inserted. On being asked where he got the money
with. which he purchased the insolvent's business, he
refused to answer, but admitted that, about three
weeks before, he had given security for a debt he was
unable to pay. The Court, after hearing the whole
of his evidence, were of opinion that it was impossible
for any human being to give the slightest credit to
anything which he had sworn. One of the brAci
proved the valuation, and that he had seen money
pass from Woodmaster, of whom he knew nothilz,
to the insolvent. The Court gave full credit to the
broker's testimony, which shewed a deep design en
the part of the insolvent to give a colour to his fraud.
For the same purpose he ca' led in two honest broker,,
who might see the money paid and to make the vall-
ation, but the Court had no doubt that the insolvent's
own money paid for his stock. Then, as to Car tea,
the insolvent's friend, to whom he paid the money,
for money he had borrowed without any security
twelve months before, and for whose production the
case was adjourned, he now said he could not tiA
him, and the impression on the Court was that
was no such man, either now or at any other time.
It was reasonable to inquire what motive the insolvent
-could have had for his fraudulent conduct, and On
appeared by the vvi,!ence. A verdict had been given
ag.iinsehim for-damages for a libel, and execution
might have issued on the 29th of April; to defeat
which he made away with his property on the 16th,
;by a device of more than usual contrivance, which
,required to be severely marked by the Court. The
-judgment therefore was,. that the insolvent should be
• remanded for eighteen months.
'III a' —l47* A A rtititi -I16:i t itryrfis: t
31crromg , - 511' answer., Air S.
AttOilidult • • - 37 minutes Arr. .5.
CONYITKNaTera-ta ix; Wiacti.
•