Star.
London, England, 1811-08-22 00:00:00

suAREr SPECIAL SESSIONS.
rt•IsoLVIINT DEBTORS.
James Jenner, an Officer of Militia, was opposed on
the groutid of not having in his schedule set forth his
two last places of abode. He stated, that being a mi-
litia officer, he hail been quartered in various counties
and towns, but, getting embarrassed, and tearful of ar-
rests, he moved from place to place, to evade writs,
and had no place of residence for a considerable time
previous to his arrest. The Magistrates, tua.wever, were
of opinion, that the prisoner had not made a place of
residence for himself, by stating himself to be a Mi-
litia Officer. He was of courseremanded.
James Howard was opposed by Mr. LAWES, under
the latter part of the 36th section of the Insolvent Act,
by which it is provided,
" That no person charged in execution for damages recov. red
in ally action for criminal conversation with the wife of the
plaintiff in such action, or in action for seducing or carnally
knowing the daughter or female servant of the plaintiff, or in any
action for a malicious prosecution, or in any action fur any other
Inaba:As injury, shall have any benefit under this Act, except
only in cases where the plaintiff in such actions respectively shall
be dead, and no person shall have obtained probate of the will or
letters of administration of the effects of such plaintiff, within 15
months after his decease, except where such person shall have
been confiaed in prison for the space of ten years, last past."
Mr. Laws stated, that the case of the debtor came
directly within the meaning and intent of this part of
the Act. Mr. Howard, he observed, had formerly
resided at Rochester; and had let'a shop and parlour
in his !ionic to a respectable young lady of the name
t•i Clara Sterne, who there carried on the millinery
old dress-making business, in whose behalf he (Mr.
Laws) then addressed the Court, she having been
most cruelly treated by the debtor. One Sunday af-
ternoon, in the course of the last year, Mr. Howard,
taking advantage of the absence of Miss Sterne, who
was attending divine worship, without the slightest
provocation broke open the young lady's door, and
threw the whole of lier goods into the street. For
this-offence site had brought an action against him,
which was tried at the Maidstone Assizes, before Lord
Zllenhorough, when the Jury found for the plain-
damages a6BO ; she had not, however, received
one farthing. Mr. Howard, rather than make any
reparation, had thought proper to go to gaol. The
offence of which a Jury of his country had found him
guilty, Mr. Laws contended, was of that malicious
description which came within the Awaking of the act.
Mr. Laws then proceeded to put itr the record of
the trial at Nisi Prius.
Mr. Howard (with much.violence)-..`" I say it's
no record."
Mr; LAws—'" I do not vire for your opinion on
the subct—l maintain that it is a record."
Mr. Howard—" I say it's no record, after jag-
ment."
• Mr. NOLAN, for the debtor, argtied that the record
of the trial at Nisi Priusiwas not admissible evidence.
Where better evidence could be adduced, that of an
inferior description was always rejected. The record
now put its was simply an evidence of the trial. iiut
that which should have been produced was the final
judgment. •
Mr. LAws observed, that he did not mean to put
in the record as evidence of the judgment in' the
action, boi merely as a proof of the cause of action
being what he alledged. He, however, considered
the record at Nisi Prins as better evidence than the
Judgment Roll, the latter being nothing more than
a transcript of the former which was the original in-
strument.
The Court over-ruled the objection, considering the
record to be admissible evidence.
Mr. NOLAN then contended that even allowing the
record to be evidence of sonidbng, it did not prove
that which was necessary under the Act, viz. " That
the debtor was charged in execution for damages re-
covered hi an action fora malicious injury ;"—•
which was the ground taken by his Learned, Friend.
To sustain his argument, Mr. Nolan read the original
writ, and also gi eat part of the record of the action
brought by Miss Clara EP _ine, from which it appeared
that the action slims merely for trespass.
The Court agreed with Mr. Nolan that an action
of this .description could not be considered,Vardtm
vrteth, will. those specified in the Act.
The debtor, therefore, after a short examination as
to his property, was discharged.
• James Hawkins was opposed by Mr. LAws, on
the part of Mrs. Jane Dobson, under the 57th section
of tho Act, which excepts from its benefits 4' persons
removing effects from their premises, to the value of '
• v £9O, with a fr:iudulent intent to disappoint the right
of their respective landlords." It appeared that the
debtor had taken the lease of a large farm, in the
neighbOurhood of Waltham Cross, froni Mrs: Dob-I
son, about two years ago. For the firit year
he was to pay atll7, and £137 per annum after.l
wards. At Michaelmas, 1809, he owed a year's
rent—when called on for it, he excused himself, on
the ground that he had mislaid the yeceipts for the
taxes. On the ISth of December following, how-
ever, he quitted the premises, lo'cked up the house,
and carried' away all the stock and furniture. Mrs.
Dobson in consequence applied :to the Magistrates,
who having heard her Statement convicted the deb.,
for under the 11th of George 11. by which
trates are empowered to put lessors in possession of
their premises, if the lessees shall be proved to have•
absconded; leaving a year's rent.due. In afew days
after the order of conviction was F,ranted, Mr. Haw.
kins wrote a vet./ penitent letter to Mrs. Debscm, ex-
pressing his 'soiow that it WAS not then in his power,
to make her :•ty reparation, but assuring her of his
intention so to do, whenever circumstances permit-
ted. He at the same time transmitted to her the
lease of the farm. Mr. LAWS conceived this case
came immediately within the 37th clause of the Act.
Mr. NOLAN, for the debtor, denied that there was,
any proof whatever that he had acted fraudulently.:
It liad not been given in evidence, that he had re-
moved the stock. For any thing which had been
stated to the Court, the property might have been
seized in execution. Nay, the produce of it might
even then be lying at.the batsking-house of Messrs. '
Child, into which it was stipulated the rent should be
paid. No one had deposed: that the propetty had
been taken away in a clandestine manner—and, if
every man who was prevented by distress from paying
his rent, were so be imprisoned for ten years, it
would be a proceeding cruel and unjust in the high-
est degree.
The Court, however, held, that the ease' made out
by Mr. Laws, was sufficient to justify the remanding
14e debtor—which was accordingly done.