DISTRICT COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume I, 16 October 1879, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

[Before His. Honor Judge Ward.]

WEDNESDAY, October lit

■ IK BANKRUPTCY. J ohn*”Broom, Taylor and Lill, and James Daly (for whom Mr O’Reilly appeared), obtained orders of discharge. Re Jas. Daly, application for certain moneys held by the Bank of New Zealand. Rule nisi granted. Mr O’Reilly for applicant.

Re Samuel Findlay, Thos. and Fred. Laurence. Application for order of payment of costs. Orders granted. Mr Branson for applicants. Re Thomas Dudson. Application for order of discharge. Mr O’Reilly for applicant. Application adjourned. Ro Thomas Miles, and Thomas Rountree. Order of discharge granted. Mr Branson for applicants, instructed by Mr Crisp. Re William Munro. Application for the examinath nof witnesses. Mr O’Reilly conducted the examination.

Harry Friedlander, sworn —I am Inspector of Health for the Borough of Ashburton. On the 18th of April last I took a bill of sale from Munro. I did not see Munro before the bill was executed, but I saw him afterwards. I did not examine the schedule, as my agent in the matter, my brother Hugo, told me what the bill contained. I signed a blank cheque for my brother to pay the amount of consideration, and he filled it up for £230. I did not know what the amount was, hut I told my brother to deduct his commission in the transaction from it. I usually draw upon my brother when I want money. He always transacts my business. His Honor—How could your agent, who was acting for you only, deduct the commission from the amount. He was not the bankrupt’s agent. Witness—Munro was not a bankrupt at that time. My brother did not promise to indemnify me against loss on this transaction.

Mr. O’Reilly to His Honor—Witness declined to answer that question before the trustee.

Witness—l produce the account sales of the stock sold under the bill of sale.

His Honor —Commission again ! The account sales show commission !

Witness (examination resumed) —I made a demand for the money of Mnnro at the. saleyards in Ashburton before the seizure. X only saw Muhro once, and it was at the saleyards. That was the only occasion I saw Munro in reference to that business. I made no demand except that once. Mr O’Reilly referred to witness's examination before the trustee, in which he had stated that he had seen Munro at Tinwald regarding the matter. Witness said that was after the seizure. Continuing—The bill was not registered. After the goods were sold they did not realise the amount of the bill of sale, and I was a loser by the transaction. A reaper and binder was not sold because no offer was made for it. I did not receive the money drawn at the sale. My brother got it —my agent. I bear all the loss. Mr O’Reilly—The witness refused before the trustee to say who bore the loss —he or the firm. Witness—The reaper and binder is still at my brother’s place. Could not say what is its value. A pair of harrows was also bdfe unsold. HujPf ’ Friedlander—Munro has been sending his corn Home through me for the last two seasons. I rendered him a copy of the account sales of the wheat sold at Home. He could have seen the original if he had wished, but he never asked me to see it. The account sales for this season had not been rendered as they were not yet to hand. Munro had made so many statements about his grain that it was difficult to remember them all. He had said he had 3000 bushels to sell, then 2000, and so on, and when the quantity for sale actually came up it was only 1500. Witness—l cannot stand this, Mr. O’Reilly. I am very short tempered. His Honor—You must stand it. It is for me to interfere if Mr. O’Reilly goes beyond his duty. Witness —I was advised by my solicitor not to answer. His Honor —Well, he advised you wrongly. Examination resumed — There were two separate transactions in oats, one at 3s. sd. and another at 2s. 4d. The high price was got because the grain was early in the market, but the actual value of the oats was 3s. I have received a letter from Home by the Suez mail stating that some of the wheat had been sold. On this wheat I advanced 2s. 9d. per bushel to Munro. I hope there will be a balance still to come. The firm made that advance, not Harry Friedlander who has no interest in the firm whatever. Mr O’Reilly—At the examination the witness declined to say whether Harry was in the firm or not. Witness- There are other two brothers in the firm, but not Hairy. Witness said he had a conversation with a man named Norrish, and with Mrs Munro regarding * the money, but no attempt was made to influence them with Munro to procure his signature to the bill. Told- Munro that as we had the money he had better sign the bill, as we did not know how long we might have the money. Did not tell Mr- Norrish and Mrs Munro we would carry them through for a twelvemonth. All Munro’s property was not included in the bill of sale. He had the landj under a purchasing clause from Mr Grigg* The amount of the cheque went for Small debts incurred in the current expenses of the farm. Hi« Honor—Did you know that all the man’s available property was included in the bill of sale ? Witness—'As far as he told us, all his live and dead stock was; but the man said he had only a few pounds in money. The security was given to Harry Friedlander for whom I acted. The bill of sale was enforced so soon after execution because ; happening to be in town I learned the Stock was to be distrained for rent. That was the only reason. In conversation with Mrs Munro, I said signing the bill would save ns from pressing for payment of what was already owing.. Two shillings and ninepence was a risky advance to give on grain as prices then went. We declined to answer some questions to the trustee because we were so instructed by our solicitor. Mr O’Reilly—The solicitor was not present 1 at the examination. He must have anticipated these questions. . Witness Monro made away with Jiwrfrvi and other articles. Could not fvv' the pic# of the reaper and binder as iojm iw*n

could not be made till extras arrived from j merica. |

Mr. O’Reilly then said that the credits s had instructed the trustee to institute proceedings to set the bill of sale aside, but some of the creditors thought it would be more satisfactory to recover the consideration owing for the bill of sale, £230. His Honor—Under what section of the Act.

Mr. O'Reilly—Under section 111. His Honor —I do not think it lies with me to direct. It must rest with your own judgment, Mr. O’Reilly. You can go for an order nisi.

Mr. O’Reilly—Very well, your Honor. Mr O’Reilly applied for costs against the witnesses who had declined to answer before the trustee. His Honor granted costs remarking that witnesses in any bankruptcy examination were hound to answer. The Court then rose.