The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-26 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, TuesDAy, Nov. 25.

James Thomas was opposed by Thomas Barrett, who I
said he wished to ask the insolvent a few questions. He I
first wished to know if Mr. Thomas had any counsel?
Mr. HEATH said that he appeared for the insolvent.
Mr Barrett said, in that case be would ask no more 1
questions; for the prisoners were better dealt with hem ,
than the parties who lost their money. ,
The CHIEF Costausstostte.—Oh 1 you think so. Well,
the Court will not condescend to argue the question with
yen.
The case was adjourned generally, to complete several
imperfect services.
Edward George Glasgow. was opposed by Mr. POLLOCK,
for two creditors named Fisher and Price. The insolvent
was an officer in the army, and stated that he bad no pro.
petty in the West Indies, but had an interest in some in
Canada, which he had inserted in his schedule. His balf
pay, which was the only other property he had, was
but 801. a year, and his wife was in an advanced state of
pregnancy.
Mr. POLLOCK said he was instructed by his clients to
appply for a portion of the insolvent's half pay to be set
apart towards the payment of his debts.
The COURT thought it was too much to expect that they
would meddle with the insolvent's half pry under. the
present circumstances: but if he should hereafter. be
promoted, then the lerned counsel's client might ,apply
again. They ordered the insolvent to be discharged forth. •
with. . .
George Knowles, a publican; of . Bakewell, in Derby-
shire, was opposed by Alr.- POLLOCK, for a creditor named
Woodcock. The insolvent underwent a long examination.
from which it appeared that the account of the property in
his possession at the time of filing his petition, con-
tained in his estate piper (in which, indeed, it was stated
that he had none), was utterly false. The Court, therefore,
dismissed his petition altogether.
Asa Reeves was opposed by Mr. HEATH, for Thomas
Woodford. It appeared from the evidence, at first, that the
insolvent, with only an annuity of 201. a year to live on,
took the opposing creditor's first floor at a rent of 255. a
week, and occupied it for above a year, without paying any
rent fur it.
The insolvent said, she had had two friends who used to
supply her with money; but they had both died • the,
second of them ten months ago. Her reason fur taking.l
such expensive lodgings, was because sLe was endeavour-
ing to procure a situation in a school for her daughter;
and it would not answer for her, therefore, to be seen in
shabby lodgings.
The COURT s%id that the insolvent had here taken apart-
ments far beyond her means, and without any future pros-
pect of being able to pay for them. She had treated this
poor man very ill, having occupied hit lodgings for upwards
of 12 months Without having pail hint one farthiog of
rent from the time she entered until she left them, although
it appeared she had received some money for that purpose
from one of her frien.la before his death. As to the exense
of expecting a situation for her daughter, it was not to he
endured that any one was to be at liberty to speculate upon
the property of another. The judgment of the Court
therefore was, that the insolvent should be remanded fat