Star.
London, England, 1814-11-08 00:00:00

JUDGMENT&

The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated, that having made
enquiry what day would be most convenient to their
Lordships, on Monday next he should apply for the
Judgment of the Court in several cases of persons who
were in custody.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, NOV. S.

IN THE CASE OF JOliN WEATIIERLET, A PRISONER..

Mr. Plx.Loot, for the Plaintiff, a creditor, said,
that his objection to the discharge arose from the.
defendant's own statement on his schedule, by which
it appeared that in March, 1814, there was a distress
on his farm for £757, for rent, and while that dis-
tress was on the land, his mother obtained a warrant
of attorney to confess a judgment on which execution
issued, and the stock valued at at2:360.•55. was sold
to the landlord, and the balance, after deducting
£925. 17s. 6d. for rent and expenses, paid over to
the mother. This was a fraudulent preference, for
the prisoner went to gaol in May, 1814, and had not
any thing left to pay his creditors.
Mr. PRINCR SMall and Mr. BALLANTYNE were for
the defendant. The forther stated the defendant's
case as being a very hard one. He was one of six
children of a farmer at Denham, near Uxbridge, and
as such entitled to a sixth share of his father's pro-
perty, which consisted of the farm and stock. When
he came of age, his mother allowed him to carry on
the farm for the benefit of the children, and he was,
in tact, only an agent. The mother, however, to
secure his good conduct took a bond for R197/.65.3d.
and should then have hail a warrant of attorney.—
They were ignorant of law, and had not the dextrous
Attorney of Uxbridge at their elbow. He who had
advised them latterly would have taken a proper se-
curity. For this negligence he hoped the poor chil-
dren would not suffer. In order to do justice to
them the insolvent had in March, ISI4, executed the
judgment which should have borne date and been
made in 1812 with the bond. The words of the act
were to prevent not all preference, but any undue
preference. The question would then be, was this a
preftrence to which the children, for whom the mo-
ther bad acted, were in equity not entitled ? He
hoped the Court would consider that what ought to
have been dose had its effect been done, and would
not.regved the distance of time at which the two se-
curities were giver*.
Mn. Welithuley. Mr. C. Weatherley, and Mr.

rGosling were called, who proved that the bond was
given for the use of the other children, an I th.tt the
money was now vested in trustees f.sr them. hut they
did not prove any exprecs agreement to ' ave a ju
ment with the bond. Tnis, it appeared, was an Attu-
thought.
Mr..Serjeant Par.sten was very sorry for the situa-
tion of all the parties, and as the money was invetned
in the Bank, it would be impo.sihle to get it hack.—
It was not an unfair transaction, but yet it was e
fraud on the rest of the creditors, ‘n that the defen-
dant could not be discharged under the act, which
looked to an equal distribution of the effects amongst
all the creditors. Unless something could be done to
get the consent of the creditors to his discharge, be
must remain in prison, without remedy.
Adjourned for a fortnight.
NOVEMBLIt 7.
SPROSTON v. WIAHAIII ISAACS.

Mr. PRINCE SMITH opposed the Defendant,. for a
fraud, in obtaining money un..ler a false name. The
defendant was indebted to T. Spioston. on a bill of
exchange for 80, which not being paid, Sproston
stopped all further dealings with him. He after-
wards went to Gibraltar, and there met tl.e brother
of T. Sproston, who was in pittnership with him--
1 He not only state I himself to be is friend of T. Spro-
ston, but passed himself off as Mr. Brabant, the
singer, a man of mast excellent credit, whose notes
of thin air were like bark notes—would pass current
every where—and . were as read ly convertible into
real wealth. Here, in this character, he drew a bill
on A. J. Isaacs, and signed it J. Braham, Mr. Bra-
ham's name being John Braham Now, th it Balam
was not his name was clear Hz not only signed the
first note by the name of Isaacs, but he bad p frion-
ed in that name, and must 'weir by it. The only
difficulty in the case wis for want of evidence :—he
must rely on documentary evidence—the notes,
which could not lie; and Mr. Isaacs, of wleins he
could not say but it was possible he might tell a false-
hood. He hoped he would not do it on his oath.
The notes being put in, one was admitted, but the
defendant denied that it was sizned by him. At last
he admitted it was written by his brother-in-law. one
John Lumley, whom he had atitiviiis d to settle t's
bosiness, and give not,: for him at Gibraltar. This,
he said, he could explain, if time was given to him.
He was called Israham as well As Isaacs.

Mr. Serjeant PALM= said, that might very pp-
perly be so, but it did not Aut' orize him to sig., or
get Lumley to sign for him J. BrAhAm. At his re-
quest the cue should stand over for a Lirtnight.—
Adjourned accordingly.