Star.
London, England, 1818-10-15 00:00:00

ZNSOLVZI4I7 DEBTORS' COURT, 041.14,

Colonel Thornton Gokid, sill the Nottinghamshire
Militia, was brought up this day to be reheard, hav-
ing been formerly remanded fork defective schedule.
The first objection taken against the:Mendant's
discharge was on behalf of the creditors in general,
and amounted to this—that the Colonel had shewn
an unjust preference in securing by an assignment
of some stock, the arrears of an annuity which he
had p,aanted to one Benjamin Brown and others.
It appeared that 10,000/. was invested in the Stocks,
which stood in the names of trustees, and that the
'Colonel was only entitled to the interest accruing
therefrom. The Colonel, in March, 1817, after he
had been a considerable time in custody, asiigned
over the-dividends arising from the above-mentioned
sum of 10,000!. to secure the arrears of annuity at
that time due. It was contended, that as this trans-
action had occurred during the Colonel's imprison-
ment, it was an unjust preference to the annuitants,
and was such as was expressly declared by the Act
to preclude any prisoner from having the benefit of
the Insolvent Act extended to him.

It was contended, on the part of the Insolvent,
that this assignment was granted under such circum-
stances as did not make it an undue preference within
the meaning of the Act, because at the time it was
made, the Colonel had no intention whatever of
taking the benefit of the Act, conceiving that his
property was sufficient to satisfy the demands of his
I creditors. The Court was of a similar opinion, and
overruled the objection.
. •
The next ground of opposition was, that this sur-
plus, which the defendant stated in his schedule as
sufficient to satisfy all his creditors, was not distinctly
specified therein ; but it appearing that a suit is at
present pending in Chancery against the Colonel's
trustees for the recovery of it, the Court was of opi-
nion that it was not in the Insolvent's power to state
it in more express and particular terms than he
had done. _ _ _ _

Mr. ANDREWS took the next objection on behalf ofl
Messrs. Moseley and Co. army accoutrement-makers,
Piccadilly, from whom he contended that the Colo-
nel had procured goods and cash at a time when he
was perfectly well aware that he was in insolvent
circumstances. The facts were these ;—ln January,
1815, the Colonel sent an order to Messrs. Moseley
and Co. desiring a supply of hats for his regiment,
which was executed accordingly. It was contended,
that the army accoutrement-makers conceived them-
selves guaranteed for the payment of these supplies
both by the Colonel and the Government ; that the
Colonel was nothing more than the conduit through
which the money was to pass ; and that the Colonel,
having received the sums requisite to defray the ex
penses incurred, had been guilty of such an act as
ought to prevent his discharge. This objection was,
however, subsequently given up, and another taken,
on the following grounds- e—that as the Colonel went
to the King's Bench in November, 1815, and must
therefore have known himself to have been in the
jaws of a gaol for some months previous, he acted
unfairly towards Messrs. Moseley and Co. in getting
their acceptances to two bills of his, one for 451. the
other for 1001. Mr. ANDREWS here read two letters,
the first of which was dated 15th May, 1815, de-
siring that they would accept a bill for him, at two
months, which was payable to Messrs. Howards. in
Golden-square ; the second, dated 4th June, 1815,
desiring that they would accept a bill for 100/.
payable at a month, for which, if they accepted it,
he would transmit them another, payable two days'
before the former bills became due. .

The e Learned SERJEANT observed, that as it ap-1
peared that the debt for which they opposed him
was of a much larger amount, being about 400/. or
5001. he could merely consider it as a common
debtor and creditor account, and could not think of
remanding him upon it.
Mr. ANDREWS, who had appearei very confident
of success till this stage of the proceeding, then ob-
served, that as the Court had overruled his objec-
tion, he almost despaired of his future opposition.—
Previously, however, to giving up his objections,
he should take the liberty of asking Colonel Gould
some
Theq uestions.
first question was—Whether the Insolvent was
Colonel of the Nottinghamshire Militia at the pre-
sent time ?—His ansver was in the affirmative.

Did he receive pay ?—No.
You sign the muster-roll which the Paymaster
sends to Government, in order to draw the sup-
plies ?—Yes.
Do you or he draw for the contingencies?—He does.
To what do they amount annually ?-861.
You are entitled to the surplus ?—Yes.
To what may they amount annually ?—To about
401. or 60.'. on an average.
Did you never state that they were more conside-
rable to any person, and that you were willing to give
them u??—He had never represented them as large,
but had declared bis willingness to give them up..
Mr. ANDREWS finding that he could gain nothing
by this examination, gave it up, and proceeded to
his next objection, which he took on behalf of ano-
ther creditor, Mr. Basil George Wood.
This Gentleman held a bill for £5OO, which the
Colonel had given to a Mrs. Morphew, now become
Mrs. Bear, for money lent, and which had since, in
the course of negotiation, fallen into the hands of
Mr. Wood, and which, with interest, &c. amounted
to the sum of £365. Mr. Andrews was going to en-
ter into the original concoction of this Bill, but wis
interrupted by Mr. Heath, who maintained, that as,
Mr. Wood was not the original holder of the
Mr. Wood could not enter into an examination of the i
original manner in which the bill was concocted. He
had his remedy against Mrs. Bear or Mrs. Morphew,
and could not come forward with any chance of sac-
sess against the insolvent. The Court agreed with
Mr. Heath, and also over-ruled this objection.
Mr. ARABIN opposed Colonel Gould, on behalf of!
General Arabia. This objection was founded on the
following grounds:--The Colonel had granted an
annuity of £lOO per year, to General Arabin, in re-
turn for £6OO, which the General advanced. This
was to be secured on a sum of 1:9681, invested in the
Long Annuities ; on which, prior annuities had been
granted upon this. To this the Court replied, that
eneral had been himself guilty of negligence,
in not examining. the Annuity Enrolment Office,
where he might have discovered what incumbrances
were upon the property. A second ground of objec-
tion was, that the Colonel had not this property at

all in the t.ong Annuities. The -reply again ins,
that if such was the case, the General had beentuilty
of negligence in not examining whether the Colonel
had the property in question, a caution which Le
Might and ought to have exercised.
llns-was the final objection. and being, like all the
others, over-ruled, the Colonel was declared entitled
to his discharge, to the evident satisfaction of the nu-
merous assembly which attended the Court.

Edmund Heron Lee, who resides in the Miles of the
King's Bench Prison, was opposed by Mr. ADOL.
rims on several grounds ; but the principal ground
of opposition was, that of his having wilfully con-
cealed his property. The insolvent underwent a long
and severe examination by Mr. Adolphus ; in the
course of which it came out, that he had, from the
month of December until March last, resided in a
cottage at Berkhamstead, in Hertford-hire. He
the furniture in the cottage belonged to his brother,
who now lived in Lambeth Mardi. When asked how
the brother came to be the owner of the furniture,
he answered, that the furniture had formerly been
the property of his wife, and that she gave it to his
brother in lieu of a debt she owed him. He said he
had not for a long time known where the furniture
was. After some closer examination, it came ont,
that the insolvent had this very furniture in his pos-
session at the present time; that he slept the night
before on the very bed ; that he din.-rd on the very
table, and sat on one of the very chairs, that formed
part of his furniture at Berkhamstead ; and in short,
that all the furniture was still in his possession. The
prisoner was ordered to be remanded.
William Newbury was opposed by Mr. Primmest
on the ground of hii having conducted himself in a
fraudulent manner towards his employers. The in-
solvent had been the London Agent tor
,a house at
Manchester, and his business was to sell their manu-
factured goods. Ile did not sell them on commis-
sion, but as a servant employed by the people at
Manchester, and receiving a salary of 0300 a year'
for his labour. It happened that a certain Baronet of
high rank was greatly in want of a sum of money,
and employed a person to raise the same by way of
loan. This person came to Mr. Maybitry, to borrow
the money, and acted as the intermediate agent be-
tween him and the Baronet. An agreement was
made, that the Baronet should receive a large loan
on a bond ; but that, instead of receiving it in money,
he should take the amount in Manchester goods. The
distressed Baronet accordingly, glad to get any thing
which could be turned into money to supply his
wants, gave his bond to Maybury for £7,500 and
took a quantity of goods, the price of which was
fixed by the latter so much beyond the common
wholesale market price, that the difference amounted
to no less than £1,700. The parties at Manchester
having heard of this transaction, and conceiving that
the goods so disposed of were their property, and
that Maybttry being their servant, had no right to
take to himself any profit, but was bound to give
them whatever he sold the goods for, insisted on his
giving them the difference in question. A suit was'
instituted accordingly ; and all matters in dispute
were referred to Mr. Denman, the Barrister, whose
award was, that Maybury should pay the £1,700 to
his employers. For this sum the parties at Manches-
ter put the insolvent into prison, and now opposed
his release on the ground of fraud.
The Court held, that the parties at Manchester,
after having consented to refer all the matters in dis-
pute to an arbitrator, had deprived themselves of the
right of detaining the insolvent for fraud ; and thai
the transaction resolved itself into a common con-
tract debt. The insolvent was therefore ordered to
be discharged.

QuF,N-SQUARE—Yesterday Wm. Oreentrood
brought up from the Depot of the 3d Regiment of
Dragoons, at Maidstone, on Tuesday, by James Gil-
more, the officer, was examined before the Sitting
Magistrate. The prioner was charged, under the
30th Geo. 11. with having enlisted in that Regiment
while he was a private in the Norfolk Militia.—James
Bently, private in the Ist Regiment of Life Guards,
deposed, that he ttas on the recruiting service in
1817, and that he enlisted the prisoner at a public-
house in Westminster ; he was attested before Mr.
FIELDING, and afterwards received El bounty, and
was transmitted to the above Regiment, where be re-
mained till about four months ago, when he was or-
dered to France ; he then confessed himself a deser-
ter from the Norfolk Militia, and was put under ar-
rest.—Thomas Nicholson, Serjeant in Captain Dam-
moil's Company, West Norfolk Regiment of Militia,
proved, that the prisoner enlisted in that Regiment
the 7th of April, 1615, and had served with them in
Ireland, and until they were disembodied at the City.
of Norwich. His time would not be up till 1820.
Gilmore proved the hand-writing of Mr. Fielding to
the certificate of the prisoner's attestation, when he
last enlisted.—A Solicitor, who attended on the part
of the Crown, said, the prisoner had been guilty of
various frauds of the above nature, which induced
the proper authority to proceed against him tinder
the above Statute, which makes the offence felony,
punishable by transportation for seven years. He was
fully committed for trial.

Row-sTREET.--Yesterday John Ray and James Ed-
wards:underwent an examination, charged with rob-
bing, in conjunction with two others, in Bear-street,
Leicester-square, on Tuesday night, between nine and
ten o'•cloc k, the Rev. Mr. Vickery, the Curate of the
parish of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, as mentioned in
yesterday's Paper. The prisoners were committed.
They were only discharged on Saturday :;fight from
an accusation of felony.
Thomas Norwich was fully committed, charged
with robbing the stables of Mrs. Garrick, widow of
the late celebrated actor, of the coachman's clothes.
HATTON•GARDEN:-.--Yesterday J. Grauger, a but-
cher, in Peter-street, Saffron-hill, was charged with
cruelty-to a sheep, which he was driving into his
shop. The animal would not enter the slaughter-
house, and the defendant beat it about the head till
the blood gushed out of its nose, and one of its eyes
was nearly beaten out of its head. He was convicted
irkthe penalty of 20s. In default of payment he would
be imprisoned a month in the House of Correction.

GutuntALL.—Edward Jones was yesterday charg-
ed by his wife with threatening her life, and with a
series of violence for years, the result, of family dis-
sentions, and of disagreements almost since the period
of their matrimony.. They were both respectable
persons, and the tale told by the wife was tuost