Carlisle Patriot, 13 Nov 1824 - Insolvent Debtors' Court (2)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 13 Nov 1824   (p. 3, col. 2-4)

 

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

 

[continued]

 

DAVID LORIMER, of Tarraby, Cumberland, was opposed by Mr. SAUL for the detaining creditor, John ARMSTRONG, to whom the insolvent owed £250 for money lent and interest. It appeared by LORIMER's statement, as extracted from him by Mr. G. SAUL, that ARMSTRONG lived a servant with him several years, and from 1809 to the time of the arrest, had lent insolvent all the money he had saved by a life of hard labour! ARMSTRONG is now a sort of groom at Gretna. LORIMER said he had been a farmer in Scotland, and never could make any rent by his farm; he went to ruin yearly till in 1821 he found himself worse than nothing; and in that year was eighteen weeks in Annan jail for rent. While there he executed a cessio bonorum, a conveyance of his property. Every thing on his premises was taken and sold by the landlord, Mr. IRVING, of Bonshaw. Mr. SAUL asked, "Did you not afterwards sign an omnium bonorum for the benefit of all your creditors?" The insolvent answered: "The landlord put me into gaol for £200, and I afterwards settled with him for £80; Sandy RITCHIE, my son-in-law, advanced the money, and I signed over to him all my property. I had a sister, Mrs. ROANE, who died ten years ago. She made a will; but I don't know that she left me any property after my daughters' legacies and her debts were paid.

 

Mr WANNOP, for the insolvent, said he was not entitled till the legacies were paid. On that speculation RITCHIE advanced the £80, and he had not yet realized a farthing.

 

Mr. SAUL produce a promissory note, in favour of ARMSTRONG, for £225, dated 1821. Insolvent acknowledged that the signature was his.

 

John ARMSTRONG sworn.—LORIMER game the note produced, in May, 1821. I saw him soon afterwards, and he told me how lhe property of his sister was left, and he said I should get every sixpence of my money. He said Mrs. BUSHBY paid £55 a year for part of it, for seven years—this was after he came out of Annan gaol, and he said nothing about any conveyance to RITCHIE. He told me the same story several times afterwards—the last time only a few weeks before he was put into Carlisle gaol, in July last; and even then he said nothing about a conveyance to RITCHIE.

 

By Mr. WANNOP.—He at last did tell me that the £80 had been advanced upon the property.

 

By Mr. SAUL.—He told me at the time I advanced the money that he expected the property. This is all the money I had saved. I am a poor labouring man, and hard labour and driving I had to save it.

 

Alexander RITCHIE, innkeeper, Rickergate, Carlisle, the son in law, was called.—He said he now lives in the house lately occupied by Mrs. BUSHBY, part of the property left by Mrs. ROANE. He had always received the rents, and applied them to the payment of Mrs. R.'s debts and legacies. She had been dead seven years. She died £200 in debt, from which debt she exempted her personals; and he never yet had any thing on hand, nor did he expect any thing for several years to come.—He went on to prove the advancement of the £80 in Annan jail, the assignment, and declared that he had not yet been repaid one farthing of it—on the contrary, every shilling that LORIMER had had for two years past was advanced by him.

 

The court held that the transaction with RITCHIE was a fair one, but pitied the detaining creditor, as his was a hard lot. At the same time, he never saw a case which more required investigation, for every point of it at first appeared suspicious. If there had been a cessio bonorum in Scotland, something might come from it; but he doubted whether any such thing had been done. The opposition was most proper, yet there was nothing to affect the insolvent under the act. Discharged. ARMSTRONG was appointed assignee.

 

JOHN BOYES, of Rickerby, farmer, was opposed by Mr. WANNOP, for the detaining creditors, Joseph CLARKE and Matthew ARMSTRONG, trustees for the owner of the estate which he farmed when arrested for rent.

 

On being examined he said he farmed an estate at Rickerby, under the detaining creditors. At Candlemas he owed a half-year's rent, £24 10s.; they distrained, and he replevied the goods, and after they had filed a declaration, he moved the cause from the County Court to the Common Pleas. He admitted the rent, but he had a claim for damages, and he therefore desired his attorney to go forward, according to law, but gave no particular directions. (He pleaded in bar, and subsequently withdrew the plea. This put the creditors to an expense of £24.)

 

The Commissioner said this was no offence under the act. It provided against a frivolous defence of an action: here the Insolvent was plaintiff.

 

Mr. WANNOP then proceeded on another point, and examined the Insolvent at great length. BOYES deposed that he left some potatoes and turnips on the premises; some property he sold before Lammas, but more than a week before, for the maintenance of himself, his wife and three children, his father, and another child. He sold two cows, a horse and cart, a few days or a week before the term, the proceeds of which were £15, full value. He removed no furniture. His father had a clock, chest of drawers, and a bed; these were his own he would swear; he went to Botchergate, and afterwards had relief of the parish. The cows were removed, not at night, but rather early—very early—in the morning; the horse and cart in the afternoon. PEET, Mr. ARMSTRONG's clerk, came to take an inventory the day after Lammas.—"Did you say when he observed that there was very little in the house, 'I am now ready for you; you will not now find me asleep as you did last time'?" "I did not say that. He upbraided me; I answered, 'A man is not always asleep when he is winking.' I meant nothing particular by this; I swear I did not mean that I had outwitted the creditors. PEET did not offer to take a half year's rent if I would quit the premises; he said something about quitting after the distress was over. I don't know that I said I would neither quit nor pay. None of my debts are later than 1823. I had four horses die after that. One of them I bought of WILSON, the collier, and gave a pound for it. (A laugh.) I bought another of Mr. BARNES for £4 10s. A third I purchased of Willie the Sandman for 36s. The fourth horse came from Scotland, and I gave £20 for it upwards of seven years ago. I owed 1½ year's rent; I had paid for one half year, and possessed £50 when I entered on the farm.

 

By Mr. LOWRY, the attorney for the Society for Relief of small Debtors, who had taken up BOYES's case.—With respect to the replevin, I demanded a considerable sum from the Landlord for damages which I had sustained; I did not do it to put them to unnecessary expence, but to obtain a settlement, they having let the farm as 20 acres, though it was only 16. I had not half a crop that year. The things I sold were for mere maintenance.

 

Jane ROBINSON of Rickerby, a relative of the minor who is owner of the estate, proved that the cows were on the premises on a Saturday (the day before Lammas she believed), and on Monday morning they were gone. The best horse that died might be worth £5, but nothing like £20.

 

John PEET, Mr. ARMSTRONG's clerk, distressed as bailiff. I offered DOBSON, (he said) by authority, a half-year's rent if he would quit at Lammas; if not I told him I was come to levy. He said he would either give up or pay. All the property taken amounted to but £4 19s. BOYS [sic] told me when arrested, that was the very thing he wanted; that he would pay them all in seven or eight weeks. I told him he had better pay then; and he answered that he never intended to pay in money.—Cross-examined by Mr. LOWRY, he said the goods were sold by TELFORD at the market cross—the principal purchaser was the Insolvent's wife!

 

John CAMPBELL, of Rickerby, weaver.—I saw BOYES in gaol: he talked of taking the benefit of the insolvent act—said he would sub-let the farm, and that he would be d——d if he ever paid any rent.

 

The Commissioner gave judgment. The suing out the replevin was no offence under this act, though it might have become one, if pushed further, by causing a waste of the creditors' property. The removal of the goods was very suspicious. In short, his whole conduct had been harassing—the reverse of fair; and Insolvents should be taught that such vexatious proceedings would never be tolerated by that Court. He was discharged, but ordered to be imprisoned two calendar months, under the 16th section of the act. The detaining creditors, Messrs. Joseph CLARKE and Matthew ARMSTRONG, were appointed assignees.

 

 

[to be continued]