Star.
London, England, 1829-10-06 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Oct. 5.

Yesterday, Ms May, a tradesman from Nottingham, was heard
upon his petition.
11r. Corm stated, that in this case there was an instance where
a debt on a previous occasion had been excluded from the Sche-
dule, at the instance of the creditor, who afterwards renewed his
claim, from which the Insolvent considered himself absolved.
The Cam Commissional" said, that any agreement of that sort
might be effective under particular circumstances; but when a man
had sworn to the truth of the schedule, it was nut enough that he
should omit a debt because of a verbal discharge. There was a
good deal of suspicion in this case, for the insolvent had given a
very indistinct account of two machines in his possession. It was
quite clear that the insolvent had gone to prison voluntarily, and
the Court doubted not, but that were the petition to be dismissed,
the insolvent would not remain in custody 24 hours. When he (the
Chief Commissioner) was on the Circuit at Norwich, in every case
where he dismissed petitions, the parties quitted the prison before
the Commissioner left the city. The case should stand over for
the present.
Thomas Handley, also of Nottingham, was the next person who
presented himself ; when the Commissioner inquired whether he
came up to London in company with May, the last insolvent. He
answered in the negative.
The Cuter COMMISSIONIRi addressing Mr. Rothford's clerk,
said that the cases abounded with singular coincident' ; they both
came up to London, and find an attorney, nsmed Mr. Cooke, who
kindly arrests them; they then find Mr. Rochford to bring them
through this Court; their retainer, petition, and schedule, are all
signed on the same day, and, to complete the parallel, here they
were to be heard upon their petition and schedule on the same
day.
Mr. Coots, the barrister, said this was the mast singular part of
the business ; he thought if the insolvents had acted in concert
they would not have come up on the same day.
The Omar COMMISSIONER observed that Lord Erskine once said,
" Were I to sit down to concoct a fraud, I should make some little
blunder, or do sonic awkward thing which might tend to allay sus-
picion, and in the end upset all proceedings which might be insti-
tuted against me." It appeared that both the insolvents were at-
rested at the Nag's Head in the Borough, and neither of them had
a single creditor in London.
Mr. Cooke was about to explain, when
The Omar COMMIS/10MM interposed, and said that the Learned
Counsel did not lend his excellent sense to the matter ; the insol-
vents were not persons who sought to be relieved from an hostile
arrest; nor did they, in his opinion, come here to be heard upon a
bona fide debt; there appeared to be no earthly reason why they
should be immured in a prison—at all events, they could not com-
plain of a deprivation of liberty. It would be well for the parties
who petition the Court to reflect, that whenever they were ar-
rested upon a fictitious debt there was a double perjury committed,
first, by the party who made affidavit of its existence; and second,
by the insolvent, who swore to the truth of his schedule.
After making some further remarks upon the experiments made
by many fraudulent insolvents, the Court ordered both petitions to
be dismissed.