
    Pearle v. Folsom.
    A.discharge under the insolvent debtor’s act, ordered by the proper officers, will be presumed to have been regularly done, until the contrary be shown. Under tiie first insolvent act, the Defendant was discharged only as to those who had commenced suits against him, •and had notice given them of the debtor’s petition.
    Covenant, for certificates which Defendant borrowed, and agreed to return or pay for in money at the rate of 4 shillings in the. pound. Amongst other [ileus, the Defendant pleaded, that lie had been discharged of the action under the insolvent debtor’s act He- produced a petition selling forth his imprisonmonr al the suit of anoi'tw creditor, and praying the benefit of tbrt act, 1773, e„ 4. He also produced the return of the goaier, by which ii; appears he was in also at the. suit of the present Idain-tiff. He also produced the subsequent proceedings, shewing his having taken the oath preucrib-'d is» tiuu act, and bis.having been discharged, it was argu.-d mi the other side, that he ought also to produce the notice served on the present Plaintiff, of his being about to take, the benefit of the. aci — the evidence offered did not amount to a proof of notice, it was answered, that the giving of notice, is a circumstance incident to the business of his discharge.., and must have been proved to the Justices of the Peace before they proceeded — since they have discharged him, the court here will presume, that all things preparatory to his discharge, were rightly and. legally transacted.) and they cited Bull. Nisi Fri. 173.
   For curiam

Since there is a-discharge ordered by the proper officers of justice, we will presumí: all circumstances required by law to precede the discharge,.to have been regularly observed j otherwise,, we mum presume, tiiat the Justices have acted illegally : which, is a presumption neyer entertained against the proceedings oí officers of justice. If in fact they have proceeded to discharge- without notice, and the creditor will shew that, it will vi'iate the proceedings. The presumption of omnia., rente ada,. I asís only until proof of the contrary appear¿, but we will not require the Defendant to prove notice to have been given, the Plaintiff not being able to shew any irregularity in the proceedings. There was a verdict for the Defendant.

One other point was moved in this cause, namely, whether the Defendant by a discharge under the first branch of the act, was discharged as to all creditors, or as to such only who had instituted suits against him at the time of his imprisonment.

Etper curiam — Clearly, before the late act which lias made some alteration, he was discharged only as to such creditors who had commenced their suits, and had notice given them of the debtor’s petition.

Note — Vide Burton v. Dickens, 3 Murph. 103, Howard v, Pasteur & Price, Ibid, 270, Jordan v. James & Marshall, 3 Hawks 110.  