Insolvent Debtors' Court,...
tGeorge Lawrence was opposed by MIr. POLLOMK on behalf of William Holland. It appeared.trom the examinatlon of the insol. vent, that be had miarried a widow, who bad five children by her fbrmer husband, and a separate income of 3701. a-year. About a year ald a half ago, his father lent him a sum of money, for which he gave himn a bill of sale tof his frniture as a security under which he had since possessed himself of the furniture. His opposing cre- ditor was a man who carried on several trades; he was an appraiser, a linendrper a broker, a tailor, &c., and lie (insolvent) had too much reason to believe that his kind attentions to Mlrs. Lawrence were carried to too great an extent. She lived in one of his houses, and he supplied her and her children with clothes and every thing else they wanted, tor whicl the insolvent was unforfunately liable, as no deed of separation had been executed between them. The insolvent s father conflirmed his statement respecting the bill of sale, which lie said lie received from his son oni the day on which it bore date. ilir. Holland was then examnined, and stated that he carried on all the trades mentioned by thc insolvent, and many others besides., He was a married man and had two children. ilMrs. Lawrence employed him to appraise the insolvent's goods, which he valued at 1041., but they were claimed by the insolvent's father, who took them away, antd sold thein for 30L He denied that there existed any grounds for %he insolvent's suspicions respecting Iiis intimacy with his wife - he had certainly walked withi her, arm in arm, and furnished her house; but this was nothing more than what any man should do for in unprotected woman, whose husband had forsaken her. On his cross-examination, he said, he believed that she had a sepa. rate income of 3701. a year, but she told hln that the insolventspent a great part of it. He had furnished the house in which Mrs. Lawrence resided, for the purpose of making money of it by letting it iu lodgings: he was determined to have as many irons in the fire as possible. He had not made the affidavit of debt on whichi the insolvent was arrested; he supposed an affirniation would do as well as an oath; he was by persuasion a Qbaker; he had taken an oath on the present occasion, because he swore some- times. He left the affidavit of debt to his attorney; he did not understand what counsel meant by those technical terrns: (after some explanation) he said that his foreman had sworn the affidavit tor him. He did not consider the insolvent and his wife to be separated, although they lired apart. It was her wish to be separated from him. The witness was here handed a letter folded, and directed to say, without opening it, if it was his handwriting. He at first said it looked like it; but upon opening it (notwithstanding the injunction to the contrary), he retracted this belief, and finally swore positively it was not his handwriting. The COURT, after hearing counsel on each sidle, observed that there was a contradiction of testimony in this case, but the opposing creditor's evidence, to say the least ef it, was such as it would be very unsaf to remand the insolvent upon. Frotn what appeared be- fore theni it seemed very probable that, were it not for the inter- vention the act,the insolver*ould havelain in prison at the suit of this man for a very long time. As it was, the Co.urt adjudg- ed that he was etitled to the benefit of theAct; and he was ordered to be discharged forthwith. I INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, THURSDAY, JULY 8.