Michael D.Heath-Caldwell M.Arch.

1816 - 1817 - 1818

---

James Heath R.A.  59/60         - Engraver                                 
Mary Heath (ne Phillipson)   59/60 

              
George Heath    37/38            - Attorney                               
Anne Raymond Heath (ne Dunbar)   29/30     

Julia Anna Harrison (ne Heath) aged 9/10         
John Moore Heath aged 8/9                
Douglas Denon Heath aged 5/6            
Dunbar Isidore Heath 1/2               
Leopold George Heath  0  

---

Charles Heath 31/32 - Engraver/Publisher - Half-brother of George Heath - Attorney

Elizabeth Heath (ne Petch) - 27'ish

---

The Heath Family Engravers 1779-1878, Volume 1. James Heath A.R.A. by John Heath
Don Quixote (Cervantes) - engraved by James Heath after Robert Smirke R.A. - published by T.Cadell and W.Davies in 1817/8 in four volumes with 50 plates after Smirke, including many unattributed vignettes, and two engravings by Charles Heath. 'Two subjects' were exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1816. James Heath received 50 guineas for his plate in this edition.
1. - Vol.I., The funeral of Chrysostom - plate size 11 x 9cm.

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

Paradis Lost (John Milton) - engraved by James Heath after Richard Westall R.A. - published by John Sharpe. Two volumes, which also contain four plates by Charles Heath. Engraving 'published Aug.24 1816' with the work appearing in the following year. For other James Heath illustrations to Milton see 1796.

1. - Vol.I. Book III. 'Brightest seraph tell...' - plate size 8 x 7cm.

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

Rasselas (Samuel Johnson) - engraved by James Heath after Richard Westall R.A. -  published by John Sharpe. An 1816 edition was sold at Sotheby's in Charles Heath's library sale of 23 July 1842. An earlier edition of 'Rasselas' was published in 1810, with Charles Heath illustrations.
1. - Ch.III. An old bearded man with a young man - plate size 6 x 5cm. 'Published 1 January 1817.'

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

separate print - engraved by James Heath after Thomas Stohard R.A. - published by W.H.Worthington. -Finished by James Heath, after Louis Schiavonetti, who died in 1810 after etching a first proof. Francis Engleheart was first commissioned to complete the engraving, but when its promoter, R.H.Cromek, died in 1812, his widow enlisted the help of Niccolo Schiavonetti, Louis' brother, who also died.

On James Heath completing it, it was finally published on 1 October 1817, and proved a great success with the print-buying public, even though probably limited to 700 or so copies. It was dedicated to the Prince Regent by Elizabeth Cromek. Worthington, who, according to Farrington (as reported by Heath) had ruined the original plate, produced a re-engraving published by Pickering in 1822 in a 5 x 18cm size. 
1. - The Canterbury Pilgrims.

---

4 March 1817
The Times?

'The Artist's Fund Dinner was held at Freemasons Hall on Thursday last; H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex was in the chair, supported by the venerable President of the Royal Academy Mr.West, and Messrs Soane, Chantry, Heath'....' A considerable collection was made for charity.

---

 

 

---

Thursday 27 March 1817
Morning Chronicle

Artists' General Benevolent Institution - The Third Annual Dinner of this Institution took place at Freemasons' Hall on Thursday last, his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex (Joint Patron with his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent) was in the Chair, supported on the right by the venerable President of the Royal Academy, and on the left by William Smith Esq., M.P.; about 150 other Gentlemen were present, amongst whom we discovered many distinguished patrons of Art, and Members of the Royal Academy.

After the cloth was removed the Illustrious Chairman made an eloquent and forcible appeal in favour of the Institution, and was followed by Mr. Smith, Mr. West, Dr.Collyer, and Mr. Joseph Hume. - - - Amongst the most liberal contributors we find the names of the Duke of Sussex, Earl Pomfret, - - - -Charles Heath Esq.,  - - - and the following Academicians:- Sir Thomas Lawrence, Sir William Beechey, John Soane Esq., Joseph Nollekens Esq., J.M.W. Turner Esq.,  - - M.A. Shee Esq.,  - - James Heath Esq., Samuel Drummond Esq.,  - - - 

---

Wednesday 2 April 1817
The Heath Family Engravers 1779-1878, Volume 3. by John Heath

Farington's Diary.
Newton (an R.A.)

Newton informed me of a very disagreeable situation in which he stood with Charles Heath the engraver respecting an engraving undertaken by Heath from a miniature portrait of Mr.West painted by Newton.

The impressions sent to Newton were very unsatisfactory yet Heath pressed for payment for the Plate and this day employed a solicitor to send a threatening letter to Newton. Heath having engraved the plate conditionally that Newton should not pay for it unless he approved it.

He, Newton, resolved to reject it and so informed Heath by letter..
Next day [Newton] showed me further correspondence with Charles Heath who had sent him a draft to accept £157.10.0 in payment for the Plate in answer to which Newton wrote and finally rejected it, but notwithstanding what had passed would assist Him with observations should he determine to publish it on his own account.'

Next day again"Newton called and showed me a note he had received from G.Corbould who recommended to him to compromise his dispute with C.Heath as He would otherwise be put to an additional expense of £100 and the case would be decided against Him; adding that George Heath, the barrister, had all the papers. 

Newton shewed me a statement of the case which he would shew to his Solicitor.'
On 16 April: 'Newton called and shewed me a letter he had received from Charles Heath to whom after touching upon the print, He sent the print and the picture, and would wait to see what the next impression would be, confused however that Heath would not be able to make it a Plate fit for him [i.e. Newton] to publish.

---

Saturday 5 April 1817
Morning Herald (London)

Insolvent Debtors' Court
The Earl of Morley v Kerswell
Mr.Basset, on behalf of Lord Morley, opposed the defendant, who applied for his discharge. The Learned Counsel stated, that the defendant, in 1815, stood indebted to Lord Morley for rent and tithes, in arrear, and being arrested, he endeavoured to get his discharge as an insolvent, at the Assizes for the county of Devon. Having been remanded on the ground of a fraudulent removal of his furniture, he put in special bail to the action, and a verdict was found against him for £3,550/. After he became a debtor in execution, he filed a fresh schedule without the leave of the Court, and, in the present instance, came most irregularly a second time to take the benefit of the Act.

Mr.Basset said, he had a certificate stating the ground on which the defendant was remanded, but as it was not transmitted by the Clerk of the Peace, according to the provisions of the Act, he was not allowed to read it.

Mr.Heath, for Kerswell, represented to the Court that the defendant, who had been tenant to Lord Morley, was totally ignorant how his debt, which was no more in the first instance than £20/. had been swelled to the sum of £3550/.

Mr.Basset would not admit that the verdict had been taken on one debt alone, but as the evidence he had to offer of the defendant's application at the Devon Assizes was informal, he proposed to adjourn the hearing till regular information could be obtained from the Noble plaintiff.

The hearing was adjourned to the 22d inst.

---

30 April 1817
James Heath, Russell Place, London to Dawson Turner

I have received your letter with its contents safe. I feel much in debt to you for your kind and friendly invitation to Yarmouth and if I should ever be able to get so far from town it would give me great pleasure to accept it.

I am very much obliged to Mr.Patrick for introducing me to your acquaintance and when you come to London again I hope we shall manage to spend more time together.
I am etc.

James Heath
Russell Place

---

Thursday 8 May 1817
Taunton Courier and Western Advertiser

Insolvent Debtors' Court, Saturday, April 26
The Right Hon,John, Earl of Morley (late Lord Borington) v Thomas Kerswell
The insolvent in this case was remanded on the last sitting of the Court, by consent of the parties, it being argued by Mr.Bassett, the counsel on the part of his Lordship, that he had been finally remanded at the Sessions of Exeter, for fraud and concealment of property; and as there was no explanation to the Court how a debt of £18.10s. could be possibly augmented to the sum of £3,500 the case stood over to be tried on it's merits only. Mr.Bassett stated to the Court, that since the prisoner was brought up, he had obtained an official document from the Clerk of the Quarter Sessions at Exeter, proving that the prisoner was finally remanded by that Court, on the 9th Jan.1816.

Mr.Heath, on the part of insolvent, (an old man near seventy years of age) contended that the certificate could not be produced, as it was agreed, and the adjudication of the Court was, that the case should be tried on it's merits only, and a former remand had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Mr.Bassett handed the certificate to Mr.Sergeant Runnington, who said, it being an official document from an under Court, it must be received.

Mr.Heath - "It cannot be received unless it is proved, and who can prove the hand-writing of the Clerk?

The Court was about to decide that it could not be received when Mr.John Yolland, Steward of the plaintiff, addressed the Court, and said that he knew the hand-writing. The certificate being shewn him, he swore that it was signed by the clerk of the sessions at Exeter.

Mr.Bassett put the certificate in as evidence, and contended that he, the insolvent, having been finally remanded by a court below, which had jurisdiction, that the court could not possibly alter it's adjudication.

Mr.Heath said, that if that were the law of the case, it would not matter to his client, a clause of the Act 53d of the King, which empowered that court to adjudicate upon a case which had been heard in Sessions. He then took another objection to the certificate being received, as it was not according to the Act of Parliament. The document stated that the insolvent was not entitled to the benefit of the Act and doth certify the same in the Court of Insolvent Debtors." Such was contrary to the letter of the Act.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington said the objection was fatal to the reception of the document.

Mr.Bassett then agreed to go into the case.

Mr.Heath said that he would develop this case, and shew to the court a chain of proceedings, the most iniquitous, oppressive and inhuman, that he ever been practised, and he would say, exceeding any thing ever witnessed in that court. The prisoner being examined, stated, that he had rented a farm at Plympton, Devonshire, which he held by lease two years under Earl Morley. He had lived on the farm 16 years, 14 of which he rented it under Admiral Galmary. About Lady-day, 1810, the Earl of Morley purchased the farm, his lease granted by the Admiral, expired at Lady-day 1812. The Earl of Morley applied to him to continue on the farm, and take the adjoining one which he agreed to do, but his rent was doubled. At that time framing produce was very dear. He paid his rent for two years, but several times applied to the Earl to lower his rent, or take the lease of his hands which he refused to do. On the 19th of September 1814, he was in arrears half a year's rent. he attended at the rent-day and paid £50 and in a fortnight after £20 more, which was £70, towards £150; and he took his lease with him, hoping the Earl would cancel it, or lower the rent, as the produce was then unsaleable. About a week after a fair was held for cattle at Tarnmock, about 15 miles from his house. He set out at 5 o'clock in the morning, with six yearling bullocks, to the far, and sold them to a dealer in cattle at the market price, for £24/. Out of this sum he paid £10/,. to the plaintiff, and £5/. for poor rates. The fair was held on a Friday. On the Monday following he was absent at a neighbour's on a pony belonging to his daughter, and on his return home he was informed, that during his absence a distress had been put in his house by Mr.Yolland, his Lordship's steward. He therefore, did not take the pony home, but left it at a neighbour's. All his effects were sold for £133/. and had they been sold fairly, they would have produced, he did not doubt £300/.; but his lordship was the principal purchaser, the other purchaser were all his lordship's tenants, and no one durst did against his Lordship. Mr.Yolland purchased part of his livestock for about one-third of their value. His lordship received the £70/. and the £133/. more than the rent due, but he claimed £18/. 10s. as due to him; and Mr.Yolland took forcible possession of the farm, though his lease had eight years of the term yet unexpired. His property being all old, his lordship applied to the magistrates for a summons to serve on him to appear before them for taking away, and selling the six bullocks in a clandestine manner, and £12/. the supposed value of the pony. The summons was served upon him when in bed. He being very ill at the time, took no notice of it or the Magistrates, as he thought that they had no power over him for selling his cattle fairly in an open market, and as no rent was due till the 25th of March following. In a few days after a warrant was granted by the magistrates to apprehend him, and carry him to Bridewell, to be kept to hard labour for six months without bail, unless he paid the amount of £72/. which was double the price of the bullocks and the value of the pony. He could not pay the money, and he was dragged out of his bed bad as he was, and he was confined for six months in Bridewell at hard labour, and had nothing but bread and water during that time.

Mr.Heath - "Was a distress ever in your house during the thirty-six years you lived in the farm under the Admiral?" - 'No.'

Mr.Heath - "Were you not considered at the time the Earl of Morley purchased the estates, a very respectable farmer?" - 'I was considered the greatest.' - [Here the feelings of the old man overpowered him, he burst into tears] -He continued: 'I was considered not only the greatest but one of the most respectable farmers in the neighbourhood, and if I had not been distrained upon, and my rent had been lowered according to the produce of the farm, I should have been doing well and my wife would not then have been saved from the workhouse merely by the charity of friends. When my term of imprisonment expired and I was coming out of Bridewell, two Sheriff's officers arrested me, at the fault of his lordship for £181. 10s. the supposed balance of the rent, and dragged me to Exeter gaol. When my three months expired, I applied, under the Insolvent Act, for relief at the Quarter Sessions. The Earl of Morley opposed my discharge. He stated that I had concealed some of my property, and without any further examination I was remanded. I remained two months longer in prison, and seeing no hopes of being liberated, I got bail and justified out of custody, on the 12th of January 1816. In consequence of my not putting in a plea to the action, interlocutory judgment was signed, and an execution was issued against me. I therefore surrendered to prison on discharge of my bail at the former suit of £18/ 10s. and in Hilary term I was charged in execution at the suit of the Earl of Morley, for the sum of £300/. debt, ad £15/. costs. I know of no claim the Earl can have upon me, as no claim whatever had been made upon me but for £18/.10s.

Mr.Heath - 'I am satisfied that no Peer of England would ever had been concerned in such infamous conduct."

Mr.Yolland being now called and examined, acknowledged that he did purchase some of the live stock when he distrained for rent on the prisoner.

Mr.Bassett said, were the prisoner to be remanded till the next sitting, he should be able to bring up witnesses that would put the case in a different light.

Mr.Heath opposed the case being put off an hour longer. His client had been imprisoned twelve months. which was quite long enough, at the suit of the plaintiff, for debt, and six months in Bridewell, but that was a case for subsequent consideration.

Mr.Sergeant Runnington said, he was extremely happy the case had been investigated. He should have been sorry had it been remanded on account merely of his former remand. He thought the prisoner was, above all others, a person entitled to the benefit of the Act. He was discharged.

- - - -

The above Report has been complained of by Mr.Yolland, who threatens the Editor of the Observer, (the Paper in which it first appeared) with legal proceedings. The Editors, in reply insists on its correctness and treats Mr.Yolland's threat with defiance. In what part of the Report the alleged incorrectness appears is not stated. The Observer of Sunday last says: - "Our readers will share our surprise, and perhaps satisfaction, to learn that the result of the most assiduous enquiries, from professional gentlemen and others, who were present in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, during the hearing of Kerswell's case, was, that our account was substantially correct. That in their opinion, founded upon comparison of the report with their notes, the Observer's statement, though necessarily abridged, neither exaggerated nor misrepresented any party of the proceedings. That more sympathy was never excited than during the recital of the Insolvent's narrative: that it even extended to the Learned Serjeant who presided, and whose feelings were visibly affected. This testimony so creditable to the character of our Report, at once tranquillized our minds, and decided us as to the course to be pursued. But it seemed we were destined to receive another testimonial, and from one whose credibility even Mr.Yolland himself will not, we suspect, venture to impeach. The gentleman in question is no other than Mr.Bassett, the Counsel of Earl of Morley, and who certainly did not spare his exertions in behalf of his client. Mr.Bassett makes no complaint of gross misrepresentation, which had the Steward's charge any foundation in fact, he probably would have done. He merely requests us to supply an omission, which he conceives to be material to understanding the legal part of the case. Mr.Bassett's request was complied with on Monday: his letter is now subjoined, that a like explanation may also appear in our Sunday edition."

"To the Editor of the Observer.
"Sir - Will you have the goodness, in tomorrow's edition of the Oberver, to notice a material omission in your report of the case of the Earl of Morley against Kerswell, in the Debtors' Court. The prisoner was in fact charged in execution at the suit of his Lordship for £270/. (only) debt, and £15/.10s. costs,. The action was in debt, and the declaration being on the demise of the whole term, the write of Ca.Sa. upon the judgment was issued according to the practice for £3,000/. ; but it was indorsed to the Sheriff to levy the sum of £270/. only, being the sum actually due to his Lordship, together with the costs* As this was stated by me as his Lordship's Counsel, on the examination of the prisoner, and as is of some importance, I will thank you to state this part of the case, as an omission of your Reporter, and you will oblige.
Yours obediently, A.R.Bassett.
* The prisoner's Schedule was in this respect incorrect, which stated that he was in execution for the greater sum.
 

---

Friday 16 May 1817
Morning Chronicle

List of the Jury for the Trial of Arthur Thistlewood, James Watson, the elder, Thomas Preston, and John Hooper,and of each of them, upon an indictment found against them for High Treason:-

(long list) - James Heath, of Russell Place, Fitzroy Square, engraver. - - - (John Heath of Queens Square, Esq, merchant.)

---

Saturday 17 May 1817
Morning Herald (London)

The indictment against Thistlewood, the two Watsons, Preston and Hooper, as we before stated, consists of four counts. The third count is short and comprehensive, for it embraces the facts scattered through the other counts, compressed into one substantive form: the charge thus briefly and comprehensively expressed is called "levying war." This short count, being short, we shall give it entire.

"The Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do farther present that the said Arthur Thistlewood, James Watson the elder, James Watson the younger, Thomas Preston and John Hooper, being subjects of our said Lord the King, not having the fear of God in their hearts, nor weighing the duty of their allegiance, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, as false traitors against our Lord the King, and wholly withdrawing the love, obedience, fidelity, and allegiance, which every true and faithful subject of our said Lord the King, should, and of right ought to bear towards our said Lord the King, on the said 2nd day of December, in the 57th year of the reign aforesaid with force and arms at the said parish of St.James, Clerkenwell, in the said County of Middlesex, together with a great multitude of false traitors, whose names are to the said Jurors unknown, to the number of five thousand or more, arrayed and armed in a warlike manner, that is to say, with flags, banners, and ensigns, swords, pistols, clubs, bludgeons, and other weapons, bein then and there unlawfully, maliciously, and traiterously assembled together  - - - - 
Two hundred and forty Jurymen have been summoned to attend at the trial, of whom the following is a list:-  - - (long list) James Heath, of Russell Place, Fitzroy Square, engraver. - - - 

---

Sunday 25 May 1817
Bell's Weekly Messenger

We are desired to state that Mr.Moore's Poem of Lalla Rookh, an Oriental Romance, will be published tomorrow morning, by Messrs Longman and Co. - Also, Illustrations to the Poem, engraved by Charles Heath, from Paintings by R.Westall R.A.

---

Tuesday 27 May 1817
Sun (London)

Mr.Moore's New Poem. This Day is published, in 4to. price 2/.2s. boards, Lilla Rookh, an Oriental Romance, by Thomas Moore Esq., Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, Paternoster Row. 

Also just published, in 4to. price 1/.5s. Illustrations to the Poem, engraved by Charles Heath, from Paintings by R.Westall R.A.

---

Saturday 26 July 1817
Sun (London)

Octavo Edition of Lalla Rookh. 
This day was published, 3d Edition, in 8vo. price 14s. Lalla Rookh, an Oriental Romance. By Thomas Moore Esq. Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, Paternoster Row.
Also, just published, in 8vo. price 12s. Illustrations of the Poem, engraved by Charles Heath, from Paintings by R. Westall R.A. A few of each may be had in Quarto.

---

Thursday 14 August 1817
Star (London)

Insolvent Debtors Court, Novel Opposition.
The overseers of St.Pancras v. James Mackay. 

The insolvent, James Mackay, was opposed by Mr.Agar for the Overseers or Directors of the Parish of St.Pancras.

Mr.Agar stated that the ground of his opposition was one of a novel nature; but yet one which, in his opinion, would satisfy the Court that the insolvent ought not to be discharged. The prisoner had been committed by a warrant under the hands of Mr.Farrant, a Magistrate for the County of Middlesex for refusing to pay the sum of £25, being the charges incurred to the parish for the keeping, &c., of a bastard child, of whom the prisoner was the father.

Mr.Agar contended that the claim is not of a civil nature; not was it a common debt, as by the Act of Elizabeth, the affiliation of a bastard child rendered the father liable to be committed to prison for three months; it was a criminal act; and if fellows were allowed to be white-washed from such claims, he knew it would encourage the increase of profligacy - (A laugh) - bring burdens upon parishes, and additional miseries upon the country. He said no objection to the prisoner being cleared from the common debts; but neither he nor any other to be white-washed from their crimes as well as contracts. 

In the matter of the King and Archer, in the King's Bench, the case of a soldier for the affiliation of a bastard child, the debt was £20, and the Court was satisfied that he could not be discharged from that claim, it being a criminal offence, for which he might be indicted.

Mr.Sergeant Runnington - "The insolvent admits the claim in his schedule as due to Mr.Alston of No.5 Charles St, Hampstead Road."

Mr.Heath, on the part of the prisoner, said that Mr.Agar was an Officer representing the Parish.
Mr.Serjeant Runnington - "The claim must be put in his schedule in the name of the Directors of St.Pancras, or they will be able to come upon the prisoner for the money, although he may be discharged to any admitted claim of Mr.Alston's."

Mr.Heath hoped the Court would allow it to be amended instanter.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington said, that there was no clause in the Insolvent Act which in the least affected the discharge of the prisoner upon the singular grounds stated by the opposing Counsel. He therefore allowed the prisoner to amend the schedule in Court, and take his discharge.

---

Friday 22 August 1817
Saunders's News-Letter

Insolvent Debtors' Court, London
Alleged fraud in obtaining money and credit by means of false representations.

Hickenbottom v Jacobs
The Plaintiff in this case is Mr.Hickenbottom, the proprietor of the St.Petersburgh Hotel, Dover Street, Piccadilly; the Insolvent is a very young man, the son of a gentleman at Bristol, who does not appear to be, and is not, by his own account, more than 21 years of age.

Mr.D.Pollock opposed his discharge for the Plaintiff, on the ground of gross fraud, in obtaining money and credit to the amount of £116/. by means of false representations: and also under the last Act of Parliament, for contracting debts and making engagements without the means of discharging the one or fulfilling the other.

The Insolvent, who was dressed in the first style of fashion, was placed at the bar, and sworn to truly answer all questions.

David Hickenbottom sworn. Witness keeps the St.Petersburgh Hotel, Dower Street, Piccadilly; the insolvent came to his house in January in great style, in a carriage, had a footman, and had some of the best apartments in the house, he represented the carriage to be his own and said he could afford to live at the rate of £5/. a day; his servants were in rich liveries; he told witness that he was going to marry the Duke of Leinster's niece; he said she had no fortune, but that he had £4000/. a year. He asked if he could keep his family for £5/. a day when he brought his wife to town. Witness said that he could, if he did not keep a great deal of company. The insolvent also kept a gig as well as a carriage. He staid three days at the hotel and paid the bill amounting to £10/. He said that he was going to Bath, but should return in a week with his wife; he said that his father was one of the richest merchants in Bristol. Just before the Insolvent left town he asked the witness to lend him £50/. until his return from Bath with his wife; he lent him the money. While he was at Bath a bill for £100/. drawn upon him by the Insolvent, was presented to him, he refused to accept it, and it was returned, through the medium of the London bank, to the banders at Bath, who had advanced the Insolvent the amount.

Mr.Heath, on behalf of the Insolvent, asked witness how he knew the Insolvent had received the £100/.?

Witness - "Only from being told so."

Mr.Heath - "That is no evidence."

Witness had no doubt but the Insolvent had received the money, but did not know it of his own knowledge. While the Insolvent was at Bath he received a letter from him which stated that he was sorry witness had disappointed him (witness supposed he meant for not accepting the bill of £100/.) for he had made large purchases, and cash had run short, but in a few days he should receive a dividend of £400/.

About the 14th January the Insolvent returned to witness's house from Bath with a young lady whom he said was his wife, and niece of the Duke of Leinster. He lived very expensively. Witness had no other idea of him but that he was a man of fortune. The bill the Insolvent drew on him at Bath was endorsed by Captain Butler.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington - "You owed the Insolvent nothing when he drew upon you?" Witness, "Not a shilling, he was in my debt."

Mr.Serjeant Runnington - "And you are sure he said that he had income of £4,000 per annum?" Witness, "Quite certain."

Witness cross-examined by Mr.Heath - He lent the Insolvent £30/. before he went to Bath, and credited him after that, not suspecting that he was deceiving him. He believed the Insolvent had friends at Bristol who were opulent. The Insolvent told him that his father was a great glass manufacturer at Bristol, and he believed that he was; he trusted him merely upon his representations; he made no inquiries into the truth of what he had told him.

Insolvent examined by his Counsel - He was the son of the opulent Mr.Jacobs, glass-manufacturer at Bristol; he disobliged his father, by refusing to unite himself to a lady whom his father wished him to marry; if he had not offended his father, his income would have exceeded what he had stated to Mr.Hickenbottom; he had not misrepresented to Mr.H. when he told him that he was going to marry the niece of the Duke of Leinster, for she actually was that Nobleman's niece whom he had married.

Mr.Heath was about to address the Court when

Mr.Pollock objected, it being contrary to the practice of the Court, he having called the Insolvent as a witness.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington summed up the evidence in a most perspicuous manner, and dwelt upon that part which he said operated in his mind much against the Insolvent; he referred to his saying that he had £4,000/. per annum, and his having to receive a dividend of £400/. in a few days. Such conduct was grossly dishonest, but it was the duty of Mr.Hickenbottom to have made inquiries into the circumstances of the Insolvent, and not to have credited him merely upon his appearance and representations; yet after having refused to lend him £100/. he intrusted him to a great amount without ever making inquiry into the situation of his guest. - - - He should be extending the Act indeed, were he to remand him finally for gross fraud, which would doom him to five years imprisonment; it would be a heavy infliction, a most severe punishment, and, under all the circumstances attending the case. (which he could not think lightly of) he believed the Insolvent had been more imprudent than guilty. - - - He over-ruled both of Mr.Pollock's objections, and the Insolvent was discharged.

---

Monday 1 September 1817
Morning Herald (London)

Insolvent Debtors' Court -August 30.
Charges of Swindling.
Cooper and others v Captain George Towers.
The insolvent, who is a man of considerable notoriety in the sporting world, petitioned the Court in 1815 for his discharge, he having been then in custody more than three years. His petition was then dismissed by the Court, and he was allowed to re-petition upon his giving the usual notice to his creditors, and other special circumstances required by the Court.

He petitioned the Court again about three months ago; that petition was also dismissed, because it contained libellous matter against Mr.Bousfield, one of his creditors. He now petitioned again to take the benefit of theact; he was opposed by Mr.Andrews, on behalf of about a dozen creditors. Mr.Heath and Mr.Pollock supported him successfully.

Mr.Andrews took an objection to the insolvent's care being heard. He stated that the costs of the insolvent's hearing in 1815 had not bee paid, which was an arrangement that was always understood at the bar must take place before an insolvent could be re-heard, if he had been remanded or his petition dismissed.

Mr.Pollock said that the objections was a most singular one; the costs of the day when the insolvent had his petition dismissed about three months ago were paid, - - -

Mr.Andrews replied.

The Court over-ruled Mr.Andrew's objections.

Captain Towers sworn and examined by Mr.Andrews. - He had applied three times to that Court for his discharge. He had applied twice to the Surrey Sessions unsuccessfully. He never made any application to the Court of King's Bench for his sixpences. He went to prison five years ago. He was rendered in 1812 upon Jew Bail. He had broke the of the prison repeatedly. He had not been to Bibury races in Oxfordshire since 1808. He had no horses that run in 1812, nor was he there at that time. He refused to say how often he had been out of the rules. He was certain that he had been in the prison since January last.

Mr.Heath said if the insolvent had been in the walls of the prison for three months, that was all the Act required; and he objected to Mr.Andrews enquiring about his absence at any period prior to that time.

Mr.Andrews spoke in reply.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington said that he had given it uniformly as his opinion in that Court (as well as before the Committee of the House of Commons), that it did not matter whether the insolvent had infringed the rules of the prison one or one hundred times, so as he had been in custody there three months prior to his application to the Court for relief; that was all the Act of Parliament required. - - -

Insolvent re-examined by Mr.Andrews - He considered all the bills he gave to Mr.Dormer were cancelled. He did not know Mr.Dormer was in custody. He did not know how many bills he had given him.

Mr.Heath objected to Mr.Andrews inquiring as to any bills, except those which were unpaid, or which his clients held, if any of them did hold any.

The Court held the objection good. - - -

Mr.George Bousfield examined by Mr.Andrews. - He was Solicitor to the insolvent from 1802 to 1806 or 1807. He was perfectly acquainted with his funds in Chancery.

Mr.Heath took an objection to the witnesses giving evidence relating to any transactions he became acquainted with in the capacity of solicitor to the insolvent; he was surprised such an attempt should be made; would it be suffered in any Court in England, that a confidential attorney should, after being entrusted most sacredly with all that could affect his client - after having "wormed" out of him all his secrets - should come into Court and disclose them? Suppose and attorney should, in criminal cases, be allowed to give evidence against his client, why he would come out of the prison hot with the confession of the prisoner, and state that which would hang his client, perhaps, on the following morning. Such an attempt was too gross for palliation.

Mr.Andrews, in reply to the objection said that Mr.Bousfield was a creditor to a considerable amount.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington held that he (Mr.B.) might be examined touching any transaction subsequent to hisnot being the insolvent's legal adviser; but it was impossible that the Court could suffer him to break his sacred trust if he would do it. He knew no trust of more solemnity than ought to exist between lawyer and client, except that of man and wife; he should not suffer the insolvent's confidence to be betrayed.

Mr.Bousfield re-examined by Mr.Andrews - He was attorney for several persons who had claims on the prisoner's funds in Chancery; he had learnt that the property was surcharged.

Mr.Heath objected to his stating about matters in Chancer, unless he had the official documents.

Mr.Andrews replied - He hoped the Court would not suffer it go to forth to the world, that opposing creditors must be at the enormous expense of paying for office copies before they could have their evidence received.

The Court ruled that any evidence of facts in writing were inadmissible, unless it were impossible to produce the official written statements, and in this case it was not impossible.

Mr.Bousfield examined by Mr.Heath - He ceased to be the insolvent's attorney when he was imprisoned in the King's Bench for a libel. He knew, in 1810 that the funds of his property in Chancery were over-charged. He would not swear that he did not make oath in 1812, that the funds exceeded the claims upon them.

Mr.Cooper, coach maker, Oxford Street, examined by Mr.Andrews - - - During his absence he heard something to his disadvantage, and declined lending him the money. He knew Mr.Towers was very notorious.

Mr.Heath - Never mind the notoriety.

Mr.Cooper re-examined by Mr.Andrews. - The insolvent never objected to the price of the carriage. - - -

Mr. Serjeant Runnington summed up the evidence. The case had embraced the whole sitting of the Court. - - - The prisoner had acted highly improper. His punishment, he thought, had been equal to the offence, and the objections to his discharge had not been made out in evidence. He therefore adjudged him entitled ot his discharge.

Discharged accordingly.

The Court was crowded during the examination with Gentlemen of sporting notoriety.

---

Friday 7 November 1817
Stamford Mercury

Insolvent Debtors' Court. Nov.1
Case of Unusual Oppression
Jennings v Moore - The plaintiff in this case was the agent of the Taunton Old Bank, and the defendant, a young man about twenty-six years of age, the son of a respectable farmer, who had, prior to his decease, several farms in Somersetshire. The insolvent has been in prison near twelve months. At the beginning of this year he came up before the Ilchester Bench of Magistrates at the Quarter Sessions, and was then opposed by Mr.Jennings, and upon his statement, without a full investigation of the case being entered into, the insolvent was remanded for fraud. The insolvent, feeling himself aggrieved and oppressed, removed himself by Habeas Corpus to London, and petitioned the Insolvent Court for relief. - - - he was opposed by Mr.Williams on the part of Mr.Jennings. He was asked if he had been a master or a servant on the farm? He replied that he had been a servant; that his debts amounted to the sum of £3000/., and that he never had £10/. of his own in his life. - - -

Mr.Serjeant Runnington then said, that it was quite evident the insolvent came within the meaning of the Act under which he was opposed, and it was his painful duty to remand him for gross fraud.

The insolvent (who is not a very intelligent looking man) prayed that the Court would not finally remand him, but allow him to explain on a future day with the assistance of counsel, and if he could not then give a satisfactory account, his remand might be rendered final. At the earnest request of the insolvent, the Learned Serjeant humanely acceded to is application, and left his case open until this day, when Mr.Heath and Mr.Bassett supported him in his prayer to the Court; and Messrs.Pollock and Norris opposed his discharge on the part of Jennings.

Mr.Heath addressed the Court, and said, that the onus lay with him and his learned friend to prove that the insolvent had not contracted debts without the probable means of paying them, for that appeared to be the ground upon which he was opposed.

Mr.Serjeant Runnington - "You are not perhaps aware, Mr.Heath, that the insolvent was remanded for gross fraud; but at the instance of the insolvent his case was adjourned to allow him opportunity to explain."

Mr.Heath - "I did not then appear on behalf of the insolvent."

Mr.Serjt. Runnington - "The insolvent then said, in answer to questions put to him by the Counsel that opposed his discharge, that he had been in the capacity of a servant, that he never had ten pounds in his possession at one time which he could call his own, and that he had contracted debts to the amount of £3000/.

Mr.Heath - "The insolvent has been a servant, he never had ten pounds of his own at one time, and was liable for the sum of £3000/.; but if such were the only facts in this case, what egregious folly must it have been in any agent to instruct, or him to attempt, so circumstanced, to come before this Court for relief. I will state the case as briefly as possible, and the learned gentleman who is joined with me will call evidence to prove the facts. The insolvent's father was a respectable farmer in Somersetshire; he possessed an estate called Chidgley, in the parish of Old Clive, which the insolvent was heir to by virtue of his grandmother's will; and also another estate called Ditch. The insolvent's father becoming involved, he wished to sell the Chidgley estate, and a negotiation took place between the father and Sir John Lethbridge for its purchase and out of the money the insolvent for his reversionary interest agreed to accept £2000/. and afterwards he agreed with his father to have the assignment of a farm called Ditch Farm, instead of money. But the insolvent never had either the Ditch estate or the money, as would be proved - Prior to this the insolvent's father kept cash in the hands of the opposing creditor, Jennings, who was the agent of the Old Taunton bank, but neglected to supply him with money to meet the claims upon him. - - - The bills were not sent into the world as the insolvent's bills: they were his father's; and was it right of Jennings, after he had got the insolvent to put his name to the bills, after he had persuaded him to give up his claims to the Ditch estate of the value of £2000/. , and had shared the money the estate sold for under the father's commission of bankruptcy (which could not have been sold unless the insolvent had given up the contract which he held for an assignment of the estate) - to arrest the son and keep him in prison so long for debts which he never contracted? for the insolvent never received any benefit from the bills; - - -

Mr.Serjt. Runnington - "This case is surprisingly altered. You don't intend, Mr.Pollock, to proceed any further?"

Mr.Pollock. - "I shall cross-examine the insolvent, and my client, Mr.Jennings, wishes to be examined."

Mr.Serjeant Runningto. - "There are three facts which cannot be controverted, and perhaps Mr.Jenning's had better not proceed any further." - - -

Mr.Bassett - "Why do you believe that it was with his own money?"

Witness - "Because his name was inserted in the sale book." (Witness here produced a book in which was entered the minutes of the property sold on the Ditch Farm; several items were of property purchased by the insolvent).

Mr.Heath - "What book is that?"

Witness. - "A book in which my clerk entered all the articles sold on the farm."

Mr.Heath - "That is no evidence that the insolvent bought the goods for himself and paid for them with his own money, as you have stated."

Mr.Serjeant Runnington said he was exceedingly happy that he had postponed the case for a thorough investigation; he should have been very sorry had this truly unfortunate person been remanded to prison for five years. The whole of the debts upon which he had been so hostilely opposed were debts of his father, in which he had become joint security at the request of the opposing creditor, and not debts contracted by himself. The conduct of the opposing creditor had been exceedingly gross. He issued a commission of bankruptcy against the father, and arrested the son. A more oppressive case he had never witnessed. He was sorry that the young man had been confined so long so undeservedly. He was glad Jennings had been examined; for his evidence, instead of showing any thing like fraud had been committed by the insolvent, only confirmed his opinion to the contrary, and that he had been most grossly oppressed. He therefore adjudged that he was an object above all others who had a claim to the relief of that Court, and was entitled to his discharge.

The judgment of the Commissioner gave general satisfaction to a crowded Court, and which was perhaps so newhat (sic) too strongly manifested by the auditory.

---

Tuesday 11 November 1817
Morning Herald (London)

Insolvent Debtors' Court
Denham v Reid.
The insolvent, John Reid, wheel-wright, 4 Old Castle Street, Shoreditch, was opposed by Mr.Heath for a Mr.Elijah Denham, for gross fraud. The debts of the insolvent amounted only to £33/. and his credits, chiefly bad debts, to £29/. It appeared by the insolvents own shewing, that he purchased a small shop and fixtures of a Mr.Probin, and gave him a bill drawn by himself, for £9/.16s.6d. in part payment. Probin paid the bill to Denham, and when the bill became due the insolvent refused to pay the bill. Denham sued the insolvent on the bill, and having gained a verdict in his favour, the sheriff entered the insolvent 's house to levy for the debt and costs, amounting to £24/. The insolvent declared that the goods were not his, but those of Mr.Edwards, his partner, and a bill of sale was put into the hands of the sheriff's officer, which was ante-dated; and as it appeared that the property belonged to Edwards, the sheriff's officer was under the necessity of leaving the premises. It appeared that Edwards paid no consideration for the goods and that in a few days after they became again the property of the insolvent; and the bill of sale which was manufactured merely to defraud Mr.Denham of his claim, by preventing the Sheriff from executing, was destroyed - the goods were sold, and the insolvent surrendered himself to prison and came up to take the benefit of the Act.

The Court declared it was the most fraudulent transaction, and the insolvent was remanded until the debt was paid.

- - - -
Lady Bonson v John Lumbley
The insolvent, Lumbley was opposed by Mr.Heath on the part of Lady Bonson. The insolvent stated that he was arrested ni 1814 by Thomas Morgan, for a debt of £50/. lent money. He gave a bond to Lady Bonson; the amount was three hundred when he signed the bond; but he was not possessed of the sum of £300/.

Re-examined by Mr.Pollock, his Counsel. The bond that had been given to Lady Bonson was a joint bond for £300/. himself and two others in £100/. each, and he was worth £100/. when he signed it.

The Court said there was no ground for opposition and the insolvent was discharged.

---

Monday 17 November 1817
Morning Post

Insolvent Debtors' Court. Saturday Nov. 15.
In the matter of Captain Brett, of the 8th light dragoons; a rule was moved for by Mr.Pollock, calling for the personal appearance of Captain Brett, to shew cause why he should not have his income apportioned for the purpose of paying his debts.

Mr.Pollock moved the rule upon an affidavit which stated that the Captain's regiment was in India, and he was not only in the receipt of full pay, but he had the Company's allowance which made his income equal to about £550/. per annum.

Mr.Heath, on the part of the Captain, contended that his pay could not be apportioned, for the Act had no power to assign his pay. The clause says "that such sum may be apportioned as the Court shall direct, and as shall be ordered to be apportioned by the Secretary of War." The Captain was not at the service of the East India Company; for by their Charter they agree to support a certain number of regiments, amounting to 22,000 men, and if the secretary at War had any control, it was not to be supposed that he would exercise it to this case, when the Captain was about to join his regiment, and when his expenses would exceed his income.

Mr.Serjeant Runningto - The Court would not do right to listen to that objection, unless the Secretary at War were to object to apportion the pay as directed by the Court.

Mr.Heath then objected to the affidavit.

The Court over-ruled the objection.

Mr.Heath then examined the Captain, who stated that the amount of his income, upon the average, did not exceed £480/. per annum. He was about to join his regiment; his (outfit?) to India would cost him £300/. and then he had to go 1,320 miles up the river Ganges, beyond Calcutta, at the rate of 20 miles a day, and the probably expense would be the whole of one year's pay; he was obliged to have two horses, four camels, two tents, a retinue of servants, and when he arrived at his regiment, he must purchase stables and a house, which would cost him 3,000 rupees; and it would be three years, let him economise as much as possible, before he should be able to pay the new debts which he must necessarily contract.

The Court inquired the amount of debts of the Captain from which he had been discharged, and was informed that it was £600/.

The Learned Commissioner ordered that the Captain do receive the whole of his income for the next two years, for the third, and each succeeding year, that £50/. per annum be deducted from his pay until the whole of the debts are paid.



 

---

1818
 
 

---

-