YESTERDAY. (Before John Addison, Esq., Judge) THOMAS LOMAX’S INSOLVENCY.
Among the insolvent debtors who appeared at this court yesterday to apply for their discharge was Mr. Thomas Lomax. The insolvent described himself in his schedule as “formerly of Ribblesdale-place, Preston, afterwards a lodger at Slaidburn, near Clitheroe, then of the Swan Inn, and the Rose and Crown Inn, Clitheroe, aforesaid; then of Victoria-street, Blackpool; and late a lodger at 57, Fishergate, Preston, – never in any business.”
His scheduled debts have been incurred from the year 1851 to the present year. The aggregate amount is stated to be £1,557 19s. 7d.; for £216 8s. 9d. of this it was stated that no consideration had been received. He gave as his income in that period “the amount received by me under a trust executed to my brother, James Lomax, in the year 1851, of property under a will of my late father, £6 per month, £288.” It is added, however, “During the above years my wife has received an income over which I have no control.” The credit side gives his expenses as “board and lodging four years at £200 a year – £800; travelling and private expenses about £820.” The cause of insolvency Is naively stated as “not having an income equal to my expenditure.”
The schedule is a most remarkable compilation. The largest creditor is his brother, Mr. James Lomax, for £500, for money borrowed, and a large number of tradesmen and others appear also inserted for money borrowed, down to sums of 2s. 6d. There are 207 creditors in the schedule, and of these not less than 78 are publicans, who appear for the gross amount of £180 10s. 9d. for “refreshments and borrowed money.” Mr. Sowler had been engaged by the opposing creditors, but that gentleman was called away by a telegraphic message announcing the death of a sister, and Mr. Simon conducted the opposition in his stead. Mr. McOubrey appeared for the insolvent.
Mr. Lomax: having been sworn, was examined by Mr. Simon and stated that under his father’s will he was entitled to £16,000. Previous to his marriage he made a settlement of £14,000 upon his wife. The income yielded by that sum was £560 a year, and was for their joint use.
Mr. Simon: After your marriage, I believe there were two other settlements
Mr. Lomax: There was a deed of separation executed in 1842, by which £156 was reserved to myself and the rest went to my wife during our separation. We came together again in 1851. There was another settlement after that, assigning over all my interest to my wife for her separate use. Mr. James Lomax, my brother, was the trustee under that settlement.
Mr. Simon: I see by the schedule that there is a very large amount of debts due to jewellers, publicans, and all sorts of people. Your debts to publicans alone amount to £180 10s. 9d.
Mr. Lomax: Those debts were incurred chiefly by giving drink away to people – by treating them.
Mr. Simon: How came you to deal so largely in jewellery?
Mr. Lomax: I went first to one and then another. – (Laughter.)
Mr. Simon: You got jewellery from Mr. Lowe between the years 1851 and 1852, amounting to £19.
Mr. McOubrey here Interrupted, when Mr. Simon said he was going to show a regular course of reckless conduct on the part of the insolvent.
Mr. Simon (to Mr. Lomax): What jewellery did you get?
Mr. Lomax: I got a watch from Mr. Lowe.
Mr. Simon: What became of it?
Mr. Lomax: I gave It to Mr. Wilkinson to keep for a friendly purpose for myself. Mr. Wilkinson, solicitor, of Blackburn, begged to contradict that statement.
Examination continued: Mr. Wilkinson had lent me money, and he took the watch. I never paid him a halfpenny, and therefore never got the watch back. I think the price of it was about £16. Got some pencil cases at the same time, which I lost. They were taken out of my pocket when I was in liquor. I got two or three pencil cases from Mr. Lowe. A person gave me half-a crown for one of them, and he lost it the day after. Never gave them away to women. Never gave any earrings to women, except a pair to my wife when we were first married. Did not buy any brooches of Mr. Lowe. The debt of £33 to Mr. Yates was for watches. All of them were for myself. Bought one in 1852. I bought them to wear. Did not wear them all at once. – (Laughter.) The first I bought I sold again after I had worn it several months. Parted with it for pocket money – for £3 10s. It cost eight guineas. The person I sold it to took advantage of me when I was in liquor-when I had been on the spree. – (Laughter.) That was the way I got rid of a good many things. Bought a gun from Mr. Burrow and sold it again for £9. Did not raffle it. Shot for two seasons with It on my brother’s estate before I sold it. Disposed of it in Preston.
Mr. McOuberey rose and said that every one of the creditors mentioned in the schedule had been cautioned by Mr. Wilkinson, when their accounts were discharged in 1851, not to trust Mr. Lomax again.
Examination continued: I owe a good bill to Mr. Catterall, the tailor. It is about £26 I think. I wore the clothes I got of him. They got rather shabby; but I am rather expensive in clothes, for I always like to appear decent.
Mr. M McOuberey: Perhaps you have been In the Austrian army?
Mr. Lomax : Oh, no.
Mr. McOuberey: I thought you had, probably, as they are very dressy there.-(Laughter.)
Examination continued: I have no means of paying any one of these debts. Did not Inform any of the creditors that the property was settled on my wife. Mr. Turner has sent me here under a friendly arrest.
Mr. Simon: And you have promised to pay him for doing so when you get out?
Mr. Lomax: No, sir, I was much troubled by the county court, and asked him to send me here, and he promised to do so.
Mr. Simon: What are you to give him for sending you here?
Mr. Lomax: I never promised him anything for doing so.
Mr. Simon: Well, now, with regard to this debt to Mr. Dobson for printing and stationery?
Mr. Lomax: I have not put it in the schedule as for printing and stationery; it Is for money lent. – [The entry in the schedule Is “printing and stationery, £26 5s.”]
In answer to Mr. Simon, Mr. Dobson stated that he had received no warning whatever not to credit Mr. Lomax.
Mr. Simon, in a conversation with Mr. McOubrey, urged that the post-nuptial act of settlement was not a proper one. The subsequent acts of the Insolvent were intended to be fraudulent. He had contracted all those debts in a course of reckless extravagance whilst in a state of intoxication, and could not have had any intention of liquidating them, knowing that he had no property and was without the means to do so. With regard to Mr. Dobson, the money was lent, as admitted by the Insolvent; and Mr. Dobson had received no caution whatever against him.
Mr. McOubrey said Mr. Bray was well acquainted with Mr. Lomax’s position, and he must admit that everybody knew it. In 1851, a considerable sum of money was raised by Mr. Lomax’s brother to be distributed amongst his creditors, when every one of them was expressly cautioned against trusting him for the future, with the exception of Mr. Dobson. But all the rest of the creditors had trusted him in defiance of that caution. Referring to the deed of 1851, when the insolvent and his wife came together again, the learned gentleman said it was no wonder that Mrs. Lomax should require some additional security for the support of herself and family, and that she would not go back to him unless she was supplied with the means of a respectable maintenance. It was only reasonable that those means should be given to her, and that all should not be spent in recklessness. It was nothing but prudent on her part, and an act of charity towards her children, to say she would not go back to her husband unless she had that life-interest conveyed to herself, With regard to the creditors, he dared to say they would not lose a farthing; he (Mr. McOubrey) had too much reliance on the character of the family, which was a very ancient one, to entertain the Idea that they would.
Mr. Simon asked His Honour if some arrangement could not be made with a view to a settlement of the affair, and suggested that an assignee should be appointed.
Mr. McOubrey mentioned the fact of Mrs. Lomax’s furniture having been taken.
Mr. Simon remarked that it was an unfortunate case, and again asked His Honour to propose some terms, and that the case should be adjourned.
Mr. Wilkinson observed that this was the fourth or fifth time this sort of thing had occurred, and it was quite time to put a stop to It.
Mr. McOubrey remarked that jewellers and others had no right to afford Mr. Lomax the means of distressing his family.
Mr. Wilkinson said about £1,500 had been paid for Mr. Lomax in 1851, and that Mrs. Lomax then gave up some funded property she had, for the purpose.
Mr. Lomax, in answer to His Honour, said he had never received above half the allowance which had been made to him. His brother had kept back one-half, which had been banked, he supposed, with Messrs. Pedder.
His Honour said they must ascertain what was the amount of the fund referred to. If there had been an accumulation of interest on the money so kept back, it would be something towards paying the creditors.
Mr. Bray remarked that the interest upon that would only be very small since 1851.
His Honour then adjourned the case for a fortnight, in order that it might ascertained what there was to work upon.
