Star.
London, England, 1824-04-14 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, APRIL 15.

James Alexander TVood, a person of very respectable
appearance, was opposed by Mr. POLLOCK, on behalf of
two creditors residing in Cambridge. The insolvent,
when at Cambridge University, contracted the debts for
which he now sought his.discharge. One was an enor-
mous horse-dealer's bill, for riding horses ; and the other
was for confectioneries, desserts, tcc. These, the
Learned Counsel who opposed the insolvent contended,
were not expenses that might he considered as neces-
saries; and he ought not, therefore, to be relieved by
tl:e Court.
Mt. COOKE sas of a different opinion; and considered,
that the :auk of a Student at the University could not be ,
prooeily maintained unless he had suitable allowances. 1
The COURT observed, that a Student would be much
better without those extravagances, and the enormous
expenses pinched parents blue. It was rather improper
for tradesmen to supply the various Students with ex-
travagant articles of consumption. It was not, how-
ever, meant to be said that such a debt, if contracted,
was not to be allowed: at the same time, if they lost a
debt sometimes, they would ultimately see themselves
well paid. The Court were of opinion, that the im-
pi isonment the insolvent had undergone was a sufficient I
punishment, and lie should therefore be discharged.
Captain John Barran came up on his Petition to be
discharged. He was opposed by a Lieutenant Nicholls,
for a debt of 4341. the 4QO/. being the consideration for
an annuity of 34/. He was also opposed for a debt of
7001. the consideration for an annuity of 741. granted
to a Miss Rogers, (,f Sloane-street ; the debt was subse-
quently sold by Ali .s Rogers, and it was contended that
the bona fide owner should have been inserted in the
schedule, instead of the Lady. He was also opposed by
a person named Adams, for a bill given in 1316. The
insolvent said, that when the bill was given, he was at
Liverpool on his way to America, but he never received
any value for it. He added, that his sole income was
his half-pay of 7s. per day, and he had a wife and two
children to support. His wife was en.itled to the third
of a reversionary property of 5,0001. but he never could
obtain the deed under which it was secured, or a copy.
Mr. Cootie contended that some further account
ought to be given of the reversionary property; if he
was to be discharged the assignees would never obtain
the account, and thus the bona fide creditors would be
deprived of their share.
Mr. Huma submitted it was unnecessary to send for
Trustees from Northumberland to give the statement.—
The insolvent was remanded to amend the schedule, and
to write to the Trustees to obtain the account.

William .Ward was brought up for judgment.—The
CHIEF COMMISSIONER observed, that it appeared ftom
the insolvent's proceedings that his process, the subject
of the opposition, was vexatious and improper, calcu-
lated to incur expense and litigation ; it was evident
that the insolvent was determined not to pay the debt,
for after running his creditor to considerable expense,
he came to the Court and applied for his discharge on
that debt, which the Court was of opinion could have
been paid by the insolvent; it was a resistance of legal
authority, very improper and very impertinent. The
Court therefore sentenced him to three months' impri-
sonment from the date of filing his Petition.
John Jarssum was opposed by a Mr. Henderson, for
Vexatious proceeding in defending an action.
Mr. Reynolds; the Attorney of Mr. Henderson, said,
that an action was brought against the insolvent on a
recognizance, when he gave notice of mere straw bail',
who were, in fact, nos in existence; and upon being
excepted to, gave notice of justification, requiring a long
affidavit of forty folios for opposition. A writ of error
was then obtained by the insolvent, and upon the al-
lowance being obtained, he proceeded no farther.—
judgment was immediately entered up, and then Mr.,
Henderson found an execution enter the insolvent's pre-
mises, which swept everything away. On his cross-exa-
mination, he said that the Writ of Error cost Mr. Hen-
derson 61. but the long affidavit formed a part of the
charge, it was a full folio of 72 words. The insolvent
was required to account for his proceeding by Writ of
Error ; he said his Attorney, named Eyles, had acted
without his directions, and he supposed obtained the
Writ of Error by mistake.—The insolvent was ulti-
mately discharged.
Thomas Mellor was opposed by Mr. COOKE, on behalf
of several creditors. The insolvent was a clothier near
Halifax; being considerably in debt, in a festive party',
that was assembled—among them a man named Whit-1
worth to whom he owed 201.—he says, "I can no longer
pay my way, and shall go up to London and take the
benefit of the Act; I shall not remain in the country to-
undergo an examination ;" he accordingly came to Lon-
don, and was very shortly arrested for the small sum of
201. on going to prison he applied himself to obtain his
discharge, and having employed an Attorney, signs his
estate paper, in which he declares that he is not worth
more than 201. at the bottom folio, which relates to
books, papers, &c. he says; he has none, nor any re-
lating to his estate at Halifax; and upon inquiring what
money he was possessed of, he stated that he had the
sum of 21. I Is. 6d. when he went to prison ; this was
the account he was ready to swear to; but it was aster-
tained he came tip to London with ten pounds more in
his pocket, and left fifty or sixty pounds with his wife at.
Halifax. In his account of excepted articles, he states
their amount to be 191. 16s. 6d. whereas it was proved
that the amount was much more, and that his wife had
sold a considerable quantity of furniture in the country,
amounting to about twenty-five or thirty pounds.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER• observed, that where a
man keeps back any portion of his property, he is sub-
ject to the severe animadversion of the Court. The
Legislature had prOvided, that a man so offending, his
liberty should not injure the feelings of the creditor, but
left it to the judgment of the Court. It was said that
the insolvent had a very large family; but where a man
had a large family, he should think of those of another
person. For the offences of purposely withholding the
booki and disposing of the goods, the judgment of
the Court was, chat the insolvent should be imprisoned
twelve months within the walls of the prison, from the
date of filing his Petition.