INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT, July 4.
SATURDAY, JULY 7.
John Capey, late of Peerless-place, City-road, haberdasher, Draper, and commercial traveller, was opposed by Mr BARRY, on the part of a creditor named Meeking a draper, of Holborn-hill; he was supported by Mr COOKE. The insolvent was before the Court originally on the 28th of June last. The evidence then produced, and the additional facts which transpired to-day, rendered the proceedings very long and intricate. From the examination of the insolvent and of the witnesses, it appeared that a debt of 122l. had been contracted with the opposing creditor, for goods supplied at the end of last year, for which satisfactory security was required to be given. This security was not given, and, in consequence, in December last the insolvent was arrested, but subsequently further proceedings in the action were stayed by Mr Meeking, upon his giving a cognovit for the demand, payable by instalments. None of the instruments had been paid. Another creditor, Mr Allen, of Petersfield, had threatened the insolvent with proceedings on a debt of upwards of 100l. for money lent and advanced; for this debt a warrant of attorney had been given, payable by instalments; no instalment, however, was paid, and in February last, it being discovered by Mr Allen's attorney, that he was removing his goods from his own premises to the premises of his cousin, John Capey, of Fore-street, city, an execution was issued, under which about 93l. were recovered. The insolvent stated that he considered the goods to have been removed to the premises of his cousin for the benefit of his creditors generally, and that they were worth 200l. On the contrary, Mr John Capey distinctly swore, that he considered the goods as sent to him in payment of his own particular debt, and that they were not worth the sum stated by the insolvent. Mr Meeking how do you obtained no part of his demand, although he had offered to wait six years for its liquidation. The insolvent affirmed that he had in December last sold goods to the amount of 100l. to Edward Smith, a merchant in Great St Helens, but Mr Smith could not now be found. He had also sold some goods to Hamilton and Co. These statements the opposing creditor contended to be untrue.
The COURT observed, that as some of the notices to creditors had not been served, the case could not be disposed of to-day. It was, however, intimated that the final adjudication would not be the immediate discharge of the insolvent. It did not appear that the execution issued by Allen was with the connivance of the insolvent, but looking at the circumstances attending the removal of the goods to the premises of John Capey, it might probably give rise to a question whether the general creditors had not a legal claim for restitution against that person.