Michael D.Heath-Caldwell M.Arch.

1815 - 1816 - 1817

---

James Heath R.A.   58/59         - Engraver                                 
Mary Heath (ne Phillipson)   58/59   

              
George Heath    36/37              - Attorney                        
Anne Raymond Heath (ne Dunbar)   28/29   

 
Julia Anna Harrison (ne Heath) aged 8/9        
Rev John Moore Heath aged 7/8                
Douglas Denon Heath aged 4/5                
Dunbar Isidore Heath 0/1     

---

Charles Heath 30/31 - Engraver/Publisher - Half-brother of George Heath - Attorney

Elizabeth Heath (ne Petch) - 26'ish

---

The Heath Family Engravers 1779-1878, Volume 1. James Heath A.R.A. by John Heath

Separate print - engraved by James Heath. Published March 1 1815, Macartney was an M.P. Similar in style to the prints in 'Historic Anecdotes' (1815) but not apparently included in that work. Published by G.Robinson.
1. - Sir John Macartney - plate size 12 x 12cm.

------------------------------------------------------------

Separate print - Engraved by James Heath after John Oldham - published by Colnaghi, J.P.Thompson and Heath.

1. - Robert, Earl of Roden. plate size 10 x 9cm. Oval, published 'Sept 1. 1816.' 
 

---

  

Monday 1 January 1816
Morning Post

Plates to Lord Byron's Poems - This day is published, price 18s. Twelve Plates, to illustrate the Poems of the Right Hon. Lord Byron. Engraved by Charles Heath, Engleheart, Finden, and Rhodes, from original drawings by Stothard. In foolscape 8vo. 18s.; 8vo. 30s.; and a few proofs 410. 21.2s.

---

Monday 1 January 1816
London Courier and Evening Gazette

Persia - This day is published, handsomely printed in Two Volumes royal 4to with a Map by Arrowsmith, and Twenty-two Plates by Charles Heath, price 8/ 8s.

---

Saturday 13 January 1816
Morning Post.

Surrey Sessions, Jan. 11
Farquharson Against the Parish of Christchurch and the Reverend Rowland Hill and Another.
This was an appeal brought by Mr.Farquharson, against a rate, on the ground that Mr.Rowland Hill's Chapel, commonly called the Surrey Chapel, had not been rated.

Mr.Nolan, on the part of the appellant, stated this to be a very short and simple case.

Mr.Farquharson had appealed from the rate, because that great building, the Surrey Chapel, had not been rated. This was a mere dry question of law, and should be argued merely as a question of law, and not upon political grounds, or on general arguments about the interests of religion. He was prepared to to prove, by the evidence of the door-keepers, that from one thousand to twelve hundred pounds a year was actually made by the letting of pews in that Chapel. He believed that it would be admitted that the Rev.Rowland Hall and Mr.Webber were the trustees. When he should have proved the receipts at this Chapel, it would be for them to shew what were their

disbursements, and the profit they really made. It was now settled and clear law, that any building, even although set apart for religious worship was, if a profit were made by it, liable to be rated for the poor tax. - - - continues - - - 

Mr.Nolan then asked the witness, who served the notice, whether the notice he served on Mr.R.Hill had not an address to him.

Mr.Spankie, on the part of Mr.Rowland Hill, objected to this question being put. If the other party wished the original notice to have been produced, they had only to give regular notice for its production.  - - - continues - - - 

Mr.Nolan contended that the paper he had read was not a copy, but a duplicate-original of the notice. He observed that if it entirely coincided with the body of the notice served on Mr.Rowland Hill, it was quite competent for him to prove by parole testimony, that the original served on Mr.Rowland Hill had been also addressed to him.

Mr.Heath, on the same side, contended, that since Mr.Comyn had appeared as Counsel for Mr.Rowland Hill, it was too late to deny that he had sufficient notice. He conceived that such objections were always made in limine, and before the cause had been entered into. After arguing for some time on the sufficiency of the notice, he expressed a hope that the Magistrates would not allow the question on the merits of the case to be got rid of by this technical objection.

The Chairman expressed the opinion of the Court in support of the objection, and that the appeal must therefore be dismissed.

---

Saturday 13 January 1816
Morning Post

Plates to Lord Byron's Poems - This day is published, price 18s. Twelve Plates to illustrate the Poems of the Right Hon. Lord Byron. Engraved by Charles Heath, Engleheart, Finden and Rhodes, from original drawings by Stothard. In foolscap 8vo. 18s.; 8vo 30s.; and a few proofs 410. 2/ 2s. 

Printed for John Murray, Albermarle Street, London. Of whom may be had, just published, Lord Byron's Works, complete, handsomely printed in 4 vols. foolscap 8vo. 28s. and new editions also of each Poem, separately, with titles, &c. to form, if bound together, the works equally complete, in 2 vols. 8vo.

---

Thursday 18 January 1816
Morning Post.

To the Subscribers of the Statue of Mr.Pitt, Cambridge - The Subscribers to the Statue of Mr.Pitt, who are entitled to receive the Print engrave from it by Mr.Heath are earnestly requested to apply for their impressions as soon as possible, at Mr.Heath's No.15 Russell Place, Fitzroy Square, London. Mr.Heath has kindly undertaken to deliver them himself, to prevent their getting into any other hands than those of the subscribers only: and the delay of delivery is an important loss of his valuable time.

Trin.Coll. Cambridge. Jan.15.1816. J.Brown. Sec.
 

---

Wednesday 24 January 1816
London Courier

Persia - This day is published, handsomely printed in Two Volumes, royal 4to, with a Map by Arrowsmith, and Twenty-two plates by Charles Heath, price 8/.8s.

The History of Persia, from the most early Period to the present time. With an account of the Religion, Government,  Usages, and Character of the Inhabitants of that Kingdom. By Colonel Sir John Malcolm K.C.B., and K.f.S. late Minister at the Court of Persia from the Supreme Government of India. - A few copies on large paper, 12/. 12s. 
Printed for John Murray; and Longman and Co., London

---

Tuesday 9 April 1816
Manchester Mercury

Law Intelligence
Insolvent Debtors' Court.
Captain Davison's case - This Gentleman, it may be recollected, was remanded on the 16th ult. for not inserting in his schedule the salary of his wife, her dresses &c. &c. On Monday week, he came forward with an amended schedule to claim his discharge.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington looked over the schedule and observed, that by it, it appeared that the insolvent was indebted to the amount of nearly £5,000, without the visible means of satisfying his creditors that he was worth 1s. The amount of Mr.Gardner's debt was £250, which sum was on the last day accepted; now under such a circumstance, what must be the impression on the mind of every man, when such a debt is agreed to be accepted, and the insolvent represented not to be worth a shilling. The Learned Serjeant then proceeded to eulogise the character and talents of Mrs.Davison, and observed, the from high rank she held in the Theatre, she must have a liberal salary, and considerable property in dress. - - - This (continued the Serjeant) is a very unsatisfactory statement - it does not even state when or how this sum was paid; so far it increases the suspicions he had already entertained - he had his doubts whether or not it did not exceed double the sum.

Mr.Heath - It is her account; Mr.Davison was obliged to apply to her for it, and she is ready to come forward on a future occasion and make an affidavit of it.

The Learned Serjeant was about to read the items of dress returned in the schedule, when Mr.Davison requested (through the medium of the Counsel), that they might not be made public.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington then read - " A pink dress, eight rings, four pocket handkercheifs." - You must be remanded; this affords me no satisfaction; on the contrary it is an aggravated statement. - Mr. Davison was then delivered into the hands of the tipstaff.

---

Monday 10 April 1816
Hampshire Chronicle

Insolvency Debtor's Court. - Monday - Mr.Davison's  case - This Insolvent, it may be recollected, was remanded on the 16th of the present month, for not inserting in his schedule various property, such as the salary of his wife, his wife's dresses &c. &c. At half past four o'clock he came forward with an amended schedule, to claim his discharge, pursuant to the Order of the last Court.

Mr.P.Smith stated that in consequence of what had appeared in the newspapers, he had received intelligence from Yorkshire from two persons, and he wished to offer their objections against the petition. The Court referred to the notes taken on the last opposition, by which it appeared that the involvement was opposed by Mr.Smith, on account of a debt of £250 due to a Mr.Gardener. 

Mr.Heath now stated that this being a special adjournment for a specific purpose, the court had no right to oppose the prayer of the insolvent's petition, because from reports circulated by public newspapers, persons were now coming from all parts of the country against his client. Mr.Smith was astonished at what had fallen from his learned friend, with respect to the report in the newspapers; he could only say  that for the one he saw, it contained certainly a faithful and correct detail of every word that passed on the last examination of Mr.Davison; and were it not for newspapers, the proceedings of that court had never been known. The greatest benefit had resulted to creditors by reports appearing in the public journals. He (Mr.Smith) would venture to assert, that what had been done by the newspapers had been done correctly, and he should oppose the insolvent for the persons before alluded to.

Mr.Sergeant Runnington thought this proceeding rather premature,and said he would take the case as it stood. The amended schedule being handed to him, he looked over it and observed that by it it appeared that the involvent was indebted in the large amount of nearly £5.000 without the visible means of satisfying his creditors that he was worth one shilling.  - - -The learned Serjeant than read - "My wife's salary at Drury Lane Theatre (deducting property tax), over which I have no control, nor could I have received the same had I applied for it, £341." - This (continued the Serjeant) is a very unsatisfactory statement - it does not even state when or how this sum was paid; so far it increased the suspicion he had already entertained. 

Mr.Heath - "It is Mrs.Davison's own account. Mr.Davison was obliged to apply to her for it, and she is ready to come forward on a future occasion, and make an affidavit of it." The learned Serjeant was about to read the items of dress returned in the schedule, when Mr.Davison requested (through the medium of his Counsel) that they might not be made public.

---

Wednesday 24 April 1816
George Heath's Almanac - Records of the Heath Family. Vol.1.

Went to Gills Hill 28th. Ditto to breakfast.
 

---

Monday 6 May 1816
Sun (London)

Artists General Benevolent Institution for the Relief of Decayed Artists in the United Kingdom and the Widows and Orphans of Artists. The Second Dinner of Subscribers will take place on Thursday the 30th of May 1816, at the Freemason's Tavern, in Great Queen St. His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex in the Chair.  - Stewards, His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, Earl Promfret, A.W.Devis Esq., Henry Rossi Esq., Sir Thomas Bell, John Dykes Esq., John Simpson Esq., Peter Denys Esq., P.P.J. Freeman Esq., Joshua Smith Esq., P.P., Rev D. Collyer, Charles Heath Esq.,  - - - -

Dinner on the Table at Five o'Clock precisely. Tickets 17s. each, Wine included. to be had at the Freemason's Tavern, at the Craven Hotel, Craven St, Strand, and at the Secretary's, 65 Charlotte St, Fitzroy Square.

---

Tuesday 21 May 1816
George Heath's Almanac - Records of the Heath Family. Vol.1.

Paperhangers began

---

Thursday 27 June 1816
Star (London)

Insolvent Debtors Court, June 20.

Mr.Heath moved the Court for a Rule  to allow the Rev. John Montgomery, Chaplain to the Duke of York, who was remanded some time since for concealment of property, to come up and satisfy the Court that no concealment took place, and to receive the benefit of the Act.

Mr.Bassett opposed his being allowed to come up without the creditors receiving notice; 20 days was the usual time given when an insolvent had been remanded for such an offence. 

The Court over-ruled the objection, and a rule absolute was obtained, upon payment of costs.

---

Saturday 8 June 1816
George Heath's Almanac - Records of the Heath Family. Vol.1.

Took Jane to Gill's Hill. (Jane R.Dunbar - Mrs.Sneyd)

---

[Tuesday 14 January 1817]
Madras Courier

Insolvent Debtors' Court - June 15 (1816)
The Reverend George Vaughan Montgomery, Chaplain to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, who was remanded on the 29th of last month, to amend his Schedule, came forward to claim the benefit of the Act.

Mr.Bassett, on behalf of several creditors, opposed the discharge of the Insolvent - first for the concealment of the sum of two hundred pounds, at the time he went into actual custody - secondly, for an undue preference in behalf of Lord Charles Townshend - the thirdly, for having disposed of a great quantity of furniture previous to going to prison. - Mr.Bassett, in stating, the circumstances of the case, observed, that when the Insolvent was arrested upon two actions, he had declared that he had in his pocket two hundred pounds, which would defray the debt and costs of both, and which money he was stated to have taken into prison, and there disposed of it. - - -

Mr.Heath in behalf of the Insolvent, examined him, and he swore that he had no property but what belonged to his wife. The £60/. Mr.Greenwood advanced was afterwards paid by his wife. Captain Baker, purchased his carriage for 150 guineas, and when he went into prison, he had not a shilling.

Mr.Bassett, to prove that he had £200/. two days previous to his surrender, called Mr.John Butt, clerk to Messrs.Dobre and Thomas, solicitors, who stated, that on Saturday, the 20th of January, the defendant came to their office and said he would pay the costs in both the actions instituted against him. - - -

Mr.Serjeant Runnington said the £200/. was out of the question in this case. With regard, however, to the furniture, it was highly improper that Mrs.Montgomery should have had complete control, nor could it have been sold under her sole direction. - - -

Mr.Heath - "I have sent for Mrs.Montgomery, and I have no doubt but she will render the Court a satisfactory account of the transaction."

At the breaking up of the Court, Mrs.Montgomery had arrived and Mr.Heath put a printed bill of sale, with an account of the price of each article, amounting in the whole to £111/.6s.3d. after deducting the expenses; which sum had been paid over to Mrs.Montgomery.

Mr.Bassett objected to the production of the bill of sale, alleging that it could not be received as evidence.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington ordered the Defendant to be remanded for a concealment of property.

June 26, 1816

Mr.Heath moved the Court for a rule to allow the Rev.John Montgomery, Chaplain to the Duke of York, who was remanded some time since for concealment of property, to come up to satisfy the Court, that no such concealment ever took place, and to receive the benefit of the Act,.

Mr.Bassett opposed his being allowed to come up before the creditors had received notice.

The objection was over-ruled and a rule absolutely obtained upon payment of costs.

June 27, 1816

The Rev.Montgomery, Chaplain to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, who was remanded some time since for concealment of property, consisting of household furniture, wines &c. on an estate, in Thurston, which belonged to the wife of the Insolvent, and which was settled on her before marriage, was brought up this day, by a Rule of the Court, granted yesterday upon the motion of Mr.Heath, the Counsel for the Defendant. Mr.Bassett, who opposed the Defendant, wished the to remand him on account of a copy of the schedule not being sent to the detaining creditor, as was stated had been done upon affidavit, which he would prove had not been done. - - -

The Court over-ruled the objection as it ought to have been made in an earlier stage of the business.

Mr.Heath said, that the Prisoner was remanded upon one point only, that of not satisfying the Court upon certain property. Had Mr.Bassett taken the objection on the first examination of the Insolvent, it would have proved fatal, but the only point before the Court was relating to the property which had been sold by auction at Thurston, and the money applied for the benefit of the creditors. He produced an affidavit of Mr.King, auctioneer, of Thurston, proving the sale with a catalogue, and also an affidavit of the application of the monies for the benefit of the creditors.

Discharged.

---

Friday 28 June 1816
Star (London)

Insolvent Debtors Court.

The Rev.Mr.Montgomery, Chaplain to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, who was remanded some time since for concealment of property, consisting of household furniture, wines &c., on an estate in Thurston, Suffolk, which belonged to the wife of the Insolvent, and which was settled on her before marriage, was brought up this day by a Rule of the Court granted upon the motion of Mr.Heath, the Counsel for the defendant.

Mr.Bassett, who opposed the defendant, wished the Court to remand him on account of a copy of the schedule not being sent to the detaining creditor, as was stated had been done, upon affidavit, which he would prove had not been done, for the copy he had was that sent to his client, the detaining creditor, and upon comparing it with the Insolvent's schedule, he found they did not accord with each other.

The Court over-ruled the objection, as it ought to have been made in an earlier stage of the business.

Mr.Heath said, that the prisoner was remanded upon one point only, that of not satisfying the Court upon certain property. Had Mr.Bassett taken the objection on the first examination of the Insolvent, it would have proved fatal, but the only point before the Court was relating to the property which had been sold by auction at Thurston, and the money applied for the benefit of the creditors. He produced an affidavit of Mr.King, auctioneer, of Thurston, proving the sale, with a catalogue, and also an affidavit of the application of the monies for the benefit of the creditors. - Discharged.

---

Friday 12 July 1816
George Heath's Almanac - Records of the Heath Family. Vol.1.

Corbould £18.18s. for picts.

 

---

Tuesday 16 July 1816
Morning Post.

Insolvent Debtor's Court, Saturday, July 13. 
Trespassing in Fox Hunting

Home Esq., v Oldaker - Fellon Esq., v same.
Henry Oldaker, the whipper in to the Berkeley Hunt came up to be discharged under the Insolvent Debtors Act.

He was opposed by Mr.Heath, Counsel for B.J.Sellon Esq., Sergeant-at-Law, and J.D.Hume Esq., who had charged him in execution of £270 damages, and costs, for wilful trespass upon their lands at Pinner.

Mr.Heath stated several objections against the Prisoner, and in the first place examined him as to the debt of £80 stated in the schedule of debts to be due to Harvey Combe Esq., for defending actions by his own Attorney, and that he had then never seen the professional Gentleman employed on that occasion - he further stated that he was a servant of the Berkeley Hunt, to which Mr.Combe was Treasurer, and that when he was served with the actions, he had given them to Mr.Combe to do what he pleased with them. 

After some contention between the Counsel on this point, Mr.Sergeant Runnington, the Judge, said he would give judgment upon the first objection. The Learned Serjeant then stated, that considering the Prisoner as the servant of a Subscription Pack of Hounds, called the Berkeley Hunt, and Mr.Combe as the Treasurer, whether he chose to defend the actions for him either in his public or his individual capacity, it was not such a debt as could be fairly claimed against the estate of the Insolvent. And although generally speaking, a Prisoner ought to insert every claim as could be fairly and conscientiously inserted. The Learned Serjeant stated that he did not think that the Prisoner had acted conscientiously in putting Mr.Combe's debt as a fair and admitted debt in his schedule, and therefore he should on this objection alone dismiss the Petition.

Petition dismissed accordingly, and Prisoner remanded, with liberty to present a new Petition on payment of costs.

Mr.Harvey Combe was present, and wished to address the Court, under an impression that his character was implicated in what had been said. The Judge however, declined to hear him, the business being closed.

---

Monday 22 July 1816   [not sure about this one - ed]
Gloucester Journal

Monday an inquest waws held at the house of Mrs Vigns, the sign of the Greyhound, Kennington Common, before Mr.Jemmet,on the body of Eleanor Saunders, whose death was occasioned by her hanging herself.

It appeared in evidence that the deceased was 62 years of age, was never married, and lived for 22 years as cook for the family of Mr.Heath, of Harleyford Place, Kennington Common; that since she heard the report of the world being about to end, and to be destroyed by fire on the 18th of this month,it has such an effect on her mind that she grew melancholy and low spirited, frequently shutting herself up in her room to pray, ejaculating short prayers as she went about her work; and as the dreaded day drew near, she exhibited evident marks of a disordered mind.

About seven o'clock on Sunday morning, she hung herself with a handkerchief from a leaden water pipe that ran across the ceiling, in which state she was found suspended by her fellow servants.

She was immediately cut down, and surgical assistance was sent for, but it arrived too late to render any service - Verdict, that she came to her death by her own act, in hanging herself when in a state of mental derangement.

---

Sunday 8 September 1816
Englishman

Insolvent Debtors' Court, Sept 7
Assault on Creditor
A Mr.J.F.Scurrah had been effectually opposed, in the course of the day, by a creditor named Laig, who succeeded in having him remanded. Mr.Laing took occasion to state to the Court that as the insolvent was leaving the witness's box, he had threatened him with personal violence.

Mr.Heath addressed the Court about five minutes afterwards and declared that a violent outrage had been committed within its walls. Mr.Laing had not quitted the Court a minute when the insolvent had put his threat into execution, by assaulting him in the most violent manner. The Court instantly called for an examination on the matter.

Mr.Laing, on being sworn, stated that as he was retiring through the door of the Court, he was assailed by the insolvent, Scurrah, who pulled him by the nose and struck him at the same time uttering the grossest abuse. The witness loudly called for protection of one of the turnkeys of the Fleet, who was at hand; but this person turned away without noticing his request. The turnkey being called, denied that he had heard this appeal for his protection, but he admitted that he saw Scurrah advancing towards Mr.Laing. Two others witnesses who were present came forward and deposed that they heard Mr.Laing call for the turnkey's interposition, and that the latter must have heard the call, for it was loudly made, and heard by everybody throughout the hall.

The Court declared that such outrages were not to be borne, and ordered that the insolvent should have a further detainer laid on him for a gross contempt of Court, and also that the Chief Clerk write, by its authority, to Mr.Nixon, the Warden of the Fleet Prison, and request the dismissal of the turnkey for so glaring a breach of duty. This was the third complaint of this description that was made by a creditor in the course of the week.

---

Monday 14 October 1816
Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser

Insolvent Debtors' Court, October 12
Richard Cox was opposed by Mr.Barry for having on the 26th of August last broken the rules of the Fleet prison.

Mr.Norris, for the insolvent, put n eight affidavits which set forth, that the prisoner had not broken the rules on any occasion, and that on the day alluded to he was at the Red Lion public-house, in Fleet Lane, which house is within the rules. He was then opposed for a concealment of property by two creditors, one a Mr.Haines, and the other by his own father. In the course, however, of an examination in the insolvent's behalf by Mr.Heath and Mr.Norris, it appeared that Mr.Haines's debt arose in consequence of his having lent the insolvent a horse, which met with an accident by a pole of a coach having run through its body, whereof it died; and although the prisoner had offered him £80/. as a compensation, yet he put him into prison and thereby created an expense of £100/. After a cross-examination by Mr.Barry, with respect to a dissolution of partnership having taking place between the insolvent and his father, he was held by the Court, entitled to his discharge.

---

Tuesday 22 October 1816
George Heath's Almanac - Records of the Heath Family. Vol.1.

Jane went to Docking, Norfolk. (She met Capt.Sneyd, her future husband, on the coach this journey)

---

Monday 11 November 1816
Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser

Insolvent Debtors' Court, November 9.
Mr.P.Smith applied to the Court, in the matter of Capt.W.Webb, of the 12th Dragoons, who, at the last sitting, was entitled to his discharge, on condition of assigning one-fourth of his pay for the benefit of his creditors. The insolvent sought to get rid of some words contained in the form of his conditional discharge, on the ground of their being contrary to the regulations of the service.

Mr.Heath resisted the application. As the word stood, the creditors were entitled to one-fourth of his pay as Captain of the 12th Dragoons; if the terms were generalized, he might exchange into an infantry regiment, and give his creditors one-fourth of his new pay, which could be considerably less than the old.

Mr.P.Smith replied that the Captain could not accede to terms incompatible with the rules of the service; if he was not this day discharged he would lose his commission altogether, as he had received a letter from the War Office intimating that if he was not at his quarters tomorrow, he must retire from the service.

The Court declared it readiness to pronounce judgment; which, if once done, from the facts disclosed in the case on its former hearing, the Captain could not remain one hour longer in the army. The Captain, after a short consultation with his Counsel, agreed to the terms suggested by the Court, and received his discharge accordingly.
 

---

Friday 15 November 1816
Morning Chronicle

Insolvent Debtors' Court.

George Pinnett having applied for his discharge, underwent a long cross-examination as to the disposition of his property, which, it appeared, was considerable some time since.

The prisoner deposed that he was under the necessity in September 1815,of selling off a great proportion of his stock on very disadvantageous terms, in order to pay £500 for the rent of his farm to Earl Morely, and that in February 1816, all his remaining property was distrained by that Noble Lord's steward, who sold it for £400 which was retained by him for rent and tythes - that under those circumstances, being deprived of all his farming stock and utensils, he was obliged to give up the lease of his farm to Earl Morley.

The prisoner's answers being deemed satisfactory by Mr.Serjeant Runnington, he was, after some controversy between Mr.P.Smith and Mr.Heath, ordered to be discharged. - - - 
Extraordinary Fraud.

The Petition of Joseph Akers, whose debts in his schedule amounted to £8,000 was opposed by Mr.Heath on the part of ---Jones, who holds a bill indorsed and passed to him by the prisoner for £200. This bill purported to be drawn by G.Henderson upon Mr.Nixon, 123 Great Portland Street, and accepted by H.J.Nixon; but when it was presented for payment, Nixon, the occupant of the house described in the bill, denied that the acceptance was his hand-writing, or that he knew any thing about it. Hence, Mr.Heath contended, that the bill bore a fraudulent character, of which there was reason to conclude that the prisoner, who negotiated it, was fully aware.

The prisoner stated that he had received the bill from his father, who was then in good circumstances, and resident in Staffordshire, but now a bankrupt; and that he indorsed the bill per procuration of his father; adding, that Mr.Nixon, of 123 Portland Street, who was then in Court, might be referred to on that point.

Nixon was accordingly sworn. He stated his name to be James Nixon, and that his occupation was that of an upholsterer. He denied the acceptance, but said that he had had bill transactions with the prisoner's father to the amount of several thousands; that, indeed, such was his confidence in the father's credit and circumstances, that he frequently sent him down blank stamps to draw upon him (the witness).

On an ingenious cross examination Mr.Heath, the witness stated, that the acceptance resembled the hand-writing of his son, who was, at the date of the acceptance, about 12 years old. Subsequently, he admitted that he had no doubt it was his son's hand-writing. This son, however, had no authority from witness to accept the bill. Witness knew the drawer, whom he stated to be a midshipman, at present out of the country.

Upon looking over the schedule, Mr.Serjeant Runnington observed that there was a statement of the prisoner's having signed a bond with his father for £500 when he (the prisoner) was under age. Of course then, the prisoner contracted a debt for which he knew that he was not liable. But the prisoner had, it appeared from his schedule, contracted several debts, without having any probable means of paying them. On those grounds combined with the extraordinary disclosures as to the bill, in the hands of Jones, he could not hesitate to pronounce this a case of as gross fraud, as could be supposed to come within the meaning of the late Act of Parliament. Therefore, he felt himself imperiously called upon finally to remand the prisoner.

Mr.Pollock argued against this adjudication, observing that the prisoner did not appear to be connected with any fraud imputable to Nixon's bill, as he had received that bill from his father, who had bill transactions with Nixon to the amount of £35,000.  - - -

Mr.Heath, in reply, contended that there was reason to conclude, that the father's character was traduced in this case, in order to facilitate the release of the son, who was evidently connected with Mr.Nixon, upon whose deposition before this Court, he felt it unnecessary to make any comment.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington decided that the prisoner should be finally remanded.

---

Thursday 19 December 1816
George Heath's Almanac - Records of the Heath Family. Vol.1.

D.D.H. Scarlet fever.

---

Sunday 22 December 1816
Champion (London)

Insolvent Debtors' Court.
Green and Others v F.B.Clementson
On Thursday Mr.Dowling opposed the discharge of this prisoner, on the authority of the last act, which provided the debtor should not be entitled to his discharge if it appeared at the time of contracting his debts he had no prospect of paying his creditors; in such case he should be remanded to prison for the space of five years. The prisoner was the son of a respectable factor in the City, and had been educated for the profession of an attorney, to which he was admitted, but for the last two years had not taken out his certificate. During that period he had led an extravagant course of life - frequenting coffee-houses and taverns, keeping horses, driving his tilbury, drinking French wines, and, in short, living in the style of a man of the first fortune and fashion. His horse accounted for about £250/., and his tailor's bill, from January to July in the present year, amounted to £77/. The Commissioner was of opinion that if he were called upon to decide, he must remand the prisoner.

But Mr.Pollock and Mr.Heath, as Counsel for the prisoner, proposed that claims of the creditors who actually appeared to oppose the defendant's discharge, should be excepted, upon an understanding that the prisoner's father would pay them; and that with respect to the remainder of the debts he should be discharged.

To this proposition the creditors present acceded, and an order was made accordingly.

---

Monday 23 December 1816
Star (London)

Insolvent Debtors' Court - Dec.21.
Schmaling v Lewis
The defendant, William Henry Lewis, a partner in the house of Scholer and Lewis, merchants at Hamburgh, was opposed by Mr.Heath, on the part of Mr.Frederick William Schmaling, a merchant, residing in London.

Mr.Heath rested his opposition entirely on a clause of the last Insolvent Act, viz. "for having contracted debts without having the probable means and fair prospect of paying them." He said his client had received orders for goods in August 1815, to the amount of between six and seven thousand pounds; which was sent to him, and he sold them at Leipzig fair in January 1816, at a loss of 40 per cent. He was in a state of insolvency at the time he ordered the goods, and by letters which were read in Court, he informed Mr.Schmaling, that their house was in a thriving way, and Mr.Lewis knew very well when he ordered the goods that he had no probable means of paying for them.

Upon examination of Mr.Lewis by Mr.Heath, he stated, that the losses of the house of Scholer and Lewis were to the amount of near sixteen thousand pounds in about nine weeks, from January to March, 1816, and their losses anterior and subsequent to that time of far greater amount.

Mr.David Pollock, on behalf of the insolvent, contended that he was not insolvent at the time the goods were ordered of the opposing creditor; that his failure was owing entirely to the reduction of British goods in their value in the Continental markets; and the Mr.Schmaling had no right to arrest the insolvent in England, after having acceded to his discharge at Hamburgh, and had signed a document with the rest of the creditors to allow them to continue trading. - - -

Mr.Serjeant Runnington said, that upon the investigation of the case, he could not see any such acts of injustice towards his creditors as ought to be the cause of his incarceration in a prison for five years, which, under the clause of the Act, he was subject to, if not discharged. He was therefore of opinion that the insolvent was entitled to his discharge.

Strong expressions of approbation were manifested in Court at the decision.
 

---

Saturday 28 December 1816
Morning Chronicle

In foolscap 8vo. with a beautiful frontispiece, engraved by Charles Heath, price 5s. boards.

Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia. A Tale, by Samual Johnson LLD. Printed for F.C. and J. Rivington; G.Wilkie; Scatchard and Letterman; Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown; J.Mawman; Walker and Edwards; and B.Reynolds

---

1817
 

-