The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-10-17 00:00:00

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, OCT. 16.

Michael Reynolds, on appearing to claim his dis-
charge, was opposed -by Mr. PoccocK, on the
ground of his not having accounted for certain pro.
perty of his wife, consisting of stock, &c. relative
to her business of a dress-maker. The Learned
Counsel examined the Insolvent at great length, who
denied that his wife had ever been possessed of any
stock, and asserted, that the debt fur which he was
opposed, was not one of his incurring, but for which
be had become answerable for his brother. He also
declared that he had gone to the creditor in question,
on finding his brother was in that situation which
would preclude him from liquidating the debt, and
cautioned him as to giving him any more credit.—
This Mr. lt,ley, the creditor, denied, and as
strongly esserted that the sum in question was incurred
for goods ohtsined from him by the wife of the In-
solvent in his risme.

A Mrs. Elizabeth Esdy was called to prove that
the wife of the Insolvent was possessed of stock,
&c.; and that she had purchased a dress of her for
two pounds ten shillings.
The Prisoner was on this examined by the Court ;
he said his wife had follossed the business of a dress.
maker for five years, but she merely made up dresses
brought to her by Ladies for that purpose; and that
if Ladies called at her apartments by appointment,
to inspect any materials, she was in the constant
habit of borrowing articles for their inspection, on
which she obtained a commission in the event of a
sale taking place, and if otherwise, the goods were
returned. The dress snarled to by Mrs. Eady had,
under such circumstances, been, with other grades,
obtained of a Mrs. Mary Ann Husband, the whole of
which had been returned save the dress in question.
Mrs Husband was called, who corroborated the
evidence given on the part of the Insolvent in every
particular.

Mr'. EAT!t also opposed the discharge of the In-
solvent on the behalf' of • another creditor named
Jones, on the ground that he had given an undue
preference to a person named Mills, by giving up to
him certain duplicates.

HMI) objections were over-ruled, and the Prisoner
was ordered to he discharged.
Roger Purcell was remanded generally, the Court
being satisfied that the furniture described by him
as belonging to his father, was in fact his own pro-
perty, but he was allowed to appear again, and give
a more Fa i; fa ctory account of his property if he could.
Henry Cowling was opposed by Mr. Norris, for
removing his goods in order to avoid a distress for
rent. The whole of his debts only amounted to 291.
and he was therefore discharged.

George Isles was opposed by Mr. Hem'. The
Insolvent said he lived in Long-alley, and was a
butcher ; his wife kept a hotel in White Lion-street,
Goodman's•fields. She took that hotel in August,
ISI7, and left it last March ;she lives now in Church.
row, Whitechaple ; he is positive she quitted the
hotel before April, and the furniture was her own,
hut some belonged to Mr. Cohen. A Mr. Levy re-
moved the furniture, as he had a biH of sale on it.—
Never said he had paid 4001. for the lease of the
and he never mentioned such a subject to Mr.
Nate. The hilt of sale might have been given to Mr.
Levy six months before the goods were removed. The
money owing to Mr. Levy was borrowed by his wife,
and on thi+ account the bill of sale was given in 1817,
to secure payment. The bill of sale was brought to
him for signature by a broker. Every this was swept
away by Levy, in March. Levy has different kinds
of business, and he has a lock-up-house in one place.
The Learned SER.] EANT said, it was not necessary
to pursue the rase farther, as he was satisfied it was
his duty to remand him for undue preference. He
had further to say, that he did not believe one word
of the transaction said to have taken place between
the Insolvent's wife and Levy. He therefore order.
ed him to be remanded for undue preference and for
fraud.