Star.
London, England, 1831-01-06 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

Mary Price, described as late of Worcester, general dealer, came up
to be heard on her petitition, when her discharge was opposed by Mr.
Cooke, on behalf of a creditor named Thomas Hould.
Prom the examination of the insolvent, it appeared that she had been
arrested in July last, and gave bail to the action. In Aagust following
she married, after a short courtship, a gardener of the name of Price,,
who lived at Kidderminster, and who, she believed, at the time of their
riasariage, had another wife living. On their Marriage • settlement was.
made, and he came to reside with her. When she rendered to Oita
his name was on the door of her house, where he continued to carry Wa,
the business. She denied that she had any property, but said she ex-
petted some on the death of her mother. After her arrest, she had
caused her detaining.creditor, Dlr. Hould, to be exchequered, for giving'
receipts upon unstamped paper, for which be paid the penalty.
The opposing creditor stated in his affidavit that the insolvent owed
him 681. and, in the course of his dealings, she told him that she had
given 200 L for the house in which she resided, and that she had se-
veral others besides.
Mr. Coong said that the marriage was an ingenious trick to save the
insolvent's property, for she had sufficient to pay all her debts. His
client wished to be assignee, in order to get the property. If Price
should set up a claim afterwards, he must substantiate it ; and having
two wives, he would find himself in an "untoward situation."
The Court then appointed the opposing creditor assignee, and ordered
the insolvent to produce the will under which she was entitled to two
cottages, and adjourned the case sine aie.
Thomas Beresford, a baker, was opposed by Mr. Woodroffe, on be-
halt of Messrs. Nicholas, codmerehants, and other creditors.
Mr. Cowen supported the insolent. The insolvent underwent along,
examination, in the course of which it was elicited, that he had removed
property from off his premises to the value of 111. in order to prevent
the Court's broker putting a valuation upon it, for which concealment of
property he was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment, under the 48th
section of the Act of Parliament.
John Waring, late a Captain of a vessel called the Sydney, trading to
St. Helena, came up for hearing upon his petitioo.
Although an opposition had been entered, it was not acted upon. The;
case, nevertheless, excited considerable interest in the Court, and settled '
the question whether an insolvent could be discharged under exeunt-
stances like the following. 1
fir. C. Jew Es supported the petitioner, who it appeared owned two.
thirds of the above vessel, the other third being held by the persons of I
the firm of Collison and Slarkey, of Skinner's-place, Sherborne-lane,
who arrested the insolvent in May last for 1,0001. and upwards. They
detained the insolvent in custody until the very eve of his appearing
before the Court, when a discharge was lodged with the governor of the
prison. Upon the cue being called on, Mr. Jones rose to complain of
the oppressive conduct of the detaining creditor, upon which the Court
asked the insolvent whether he had slept in the prison on the preceding
night, and had come up with the other prisoners that morning in cus-
tody of the gaoler? The insolvent replied in the affirmative, where-
upon the Court said they would proceed with the case, notwithstanding
the discharge by the detaining creditors.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS took occasion to remark that a similar
case occurred before him while on circuit, and after he had heard it he
consulted Mr. Justice Bayley, who was of opinion that he (the Com-
missioner) was justified in hearing it, and that the conduct of the de-
taining creditor who had so acted was a fraud upon the Act of Par.
'lament. .
Mr. Cooxi, who was not on the case, observed that such an opinion.
could not be too generally known for the good of the public.
The insolvent',, debts, including the 1,0001 of the detaining creditors,
which was disputed, amounted to nearly 7,0001. His assets exceeded
9.0001.
The insolvent was ordered to be discharged forthwith, and an assignee
;:ppointed to manage the estate.