Star.
London, England, 1824-07-14 00:00:00

INSOLV}NT DEBTORS' COURT, JULY 13.

Richard Edward Butler, an Officer in the Army, came
up to be heard upon his petition. He was not opposed;
but the Court observing, upon looking at his schedule,
that be attributed his- insolvency to robbery, examined
him at some length respecting it. It appeared from
the insolvent's statement, that he resided at Bellingham,,
in Kent, with his wife and family. He was induced
some time ago to come to town for the purpose of hav-
ing a wound examined by Sir J. M'Grigor and Sir A.
Cooper; and upon his return home he was stopped near
the Lines at Chatham, by three men, who robbed him of
65 sovereigns out 471, which had been in his waist-
coat pocket. The escape- of the remaining six was
owing to their having passed through a hole in the
pocket into the lining of the waistcoat. Upon reaching
home, he found that his house had been plundered
during his absence by one of his creditors who, accom-
panied by several persons, entered it without any legal
authority whatever, frightened his family, threw his
wife into fits, and carried off a valuable quantity of
kites and other property, (amongst which was a star
of the Legion of Honour), amounting altogether in
value to upwards of 1,90 W. He immediately commu-
nicated the circumstance to the Magistrates of the
neighbourhood, and even wrote to Mr. Secretary Peel on
the subject ; but he was informed that, under the cir-
cumstances, his servant having opened. the door to
admit them, he could not convict the parties of a felony,
and ought therefore to proceed against them by civil
action for the trespass—a course which it was his deter-
mination to pursue.
The Coua observed, that it was a strange story, and
St was rather odd that none of his creditors appeared to
inquiets into it. If the; seem thus indifferent to their
own interests, .they must take the COESECIEHOCEE• The
Court was bound to give credit to the insolvent's state-
ment, since nobody came forward to contradict it: they
therefore declared him entitled to the benefit of the Act,
and ordered him to be discharged forthwith.
Edward Jennings was bran ht up to be discharged.
Mr. Spencer, the keeper of the New Debtors Prison, in-
formed the Court that the detaining creditor at whose
suit the petitioner had been confined for a considerable
time, had sent his discharge to the prison, on the eve of
his application to the Court for relief; but the insolvent
was Hill in confinement, gatafees not having been paid.
The COURT said that the discharge was evidently sent
with a view to harass the insolvent; but that view was
defeated by his having remained in custody. They or-
dered him to be discharged forthwith.
William Race" and Robert Rowland (brothers and
partners).were brought up to receive the judgment of
the Court, their cases having been investigated so far
bark as the SOth of March last. It then appeared that
the Insolvents carried, on the businesses of carmen and
coach-masters in Black Horse-yard, Tottenham-court-
road, and at Percy-mews, Rathbone-place, and that
being embarrassed, they, according to their statements,
borrowed money to a considerale amount of a Mr.
Braisher, a near relation, and to secure the advances
made, they (or one of them) gave a warrant of Attorney
or bill of sale, to enable him, as be saw fit, to put in his
execution. It was hence contended, that they had been
guilty of an undue preference, supposing that the money
had been absolutely advanced, of which there seemed
apparent doubt; therefore the onus lay with them to
produce Mr. Braisher, to explain to the Court touching
thetransfer of the said property; and, without dismiss-
ing the petition, the Court ordered the case to be ad-
jemmed sine die. Not having complied with the order
of die Court in this particular, Mr. HEATH prayed the
Court to pronounce its judgment on the case, which
prayer Mr. Por-Loce could not resist, but he felt it his
duty to state, that the absence of Mr. Braisher arose from
iiiness, and not from disobedience.
The CosPr observed, that the petitioners having
neglected to explain certain matters Mattive to the trans-
action between them Itt.te. Braisher, whose evidence,
either oral or parole, they might have produced, the in-
ference was, that had he been present, or filed his affi-
davit of the facts, he would not have gone far enough to
exculpate the insolvents from the undue preference, as
had been properly arkued by-the Learned Counsel for
the complainants. Tioderall 'the circumstances, there-
fore, the judgment of the Coon was, that they severally
be remanded for twelve Calendar months, and during
that period- be collided within the walls of the rise%
for fraudulently making away with property with a via*
to diminish the dividend.
A celebrated physician. who bad been in the habit of
receiving from a fair pekoe, tor a leis time, two plow as Ids
tee, Gee day discovering she bad libic only one, upon re.
celying the reduced deracest, Ma to
cause °lbis
carpet as a pa-
lmist
van who basket smMing. The
the
minks he told her be helical!` he di Odom; "N.
Dotter," npliodshe," vosiohtaltelit jai& kW droll*/ encl :

-

~lV:.♦ -'.l~ 1

•ti 11.21, 1.

iimiiMil