SUPREME COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume V, Issue 1496, 26 November 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—This Day.

IN BANKRUPTCY.

(Before His Honor Sir George A. Arney, Knight,

Chief Justice.)

RE DANIEL COLLINS. Mr. Keetley (for the bankrupt) applied for the bankrupt's discharge. His creditors were chiefly merchants of the city, who offered no opposition. The bankrupt was accordingly discharged. BE JOHN CALDKR. There was no opposition, and the bankrupt was discharged. Be James Canning. Mr Joy appeared for the bankrupt; who, it was represented, had been unfortunate in business as a storekeeper, and who had agreed to pay his creditors in full. He paid 55 in the £, but in consequence of a tire which destroyed the whole of his property, hindered him from the fulfilment of his promise. Twelve creditors had proved. There was no opposition, and bankrupt received his discharge. Re Samuel Davis. In this case, Mr Keetley, on behalf of the bankrupt, make an application for his discharge. The report stated that bankrupt had been an hotel-keeper, but had got into difficulties, and was compelled by one of his creditors to seek the protection of the Court. His liabilities were £28S 15s 9d, assets, £80, leaving a deficiency of £208 15s 9d. As there was no opposition, the bankrupt was discharged. Re William Ford. Mr Laishley for bankrupt. The bankrupt in this case had been a publican both at the Thames and in Auckland, and had got into difficulties through mining speculations. His debts were £443, assets £90. Bankrupt being unopposed was discharged. Me James T. Morrison Mr Joy applied for the discharge of j bankrupt, who had been a publican at Tauranga. His bankruptcy was stated to have resulted from a libel case, which cost the bankrupt about £200. No opposition. Discharged.