Supreme Court.

Bruce Herald, Volume IX, Issue 890, 20 March 1877, Page 3

Supreme Court.

(Before Mr Justice Williams.) Monday, Mabch 12. cc joseph maceat. Summons for examination of debtor, and application for rule nisi to rescind adjudicrtion. Mr Stout appeared ou behalf of the National Bank to show cause, and Mr Stewart appeared in support of the rule. Mr Stout stated that originally a rule nisi was granted by the Supreme Court calling upon the debtor to show cause why he should not be adjudicated a bankrupt, because he had failed to pay a judgment debt to tbe National Bank. While j proceeding were pending Mr Mackay filed a declaration of insolvency in the District j Court at Tokomairiro. An adjudication having been granted by the Supreme | Court, he submitted that the order could J not be set aside. Under section 39 of the Act be argued that such an order could only be set aside by appeal, and Rule 12 provided tbat an appeal could only be I made in a special case. He explained that several meetings of creditors bad been held at Tokomairiro in the District Court and at each of these the representative of the Bank had protested against the validity of the proceedings, on the ground that other proceedings were pending in the Supreme Court, and the District Court at Tokomairiro had no jurisdiction. At an adjourned meeting it was resolved that as a majority of the creditors resided in the district the business should be proceeded with. A resolution was then submitted appointing a trustee. Mr Reid, on behalf of the Bank, protested, and the minutes showed that the meeting broke up without anything definite having been done. He called attention to the affidavit filed by the insolvent on which a rule nisi was obtained, contending that the facts set forth were untrue' and misleading. The declaration of insolvency had not been duly made and gazetted, as alleged in the the affidavit. He submitted that, under the circumstances, the Court bad no jurisdiction, and the order must be discharged. Mr Stewart, in reply, said the Bank was trying to get two strings to its bow, the very thing the law would not allow. He contended that the Bank having been represented at the creditors' meetings, and having proved as well as taken part in the District Court proceedings at Tokomairiro, the order for the adjudication of the Supreme Court should be rescinded. The Bank had not applied for a stay of proceedings in the District Court at Tokomairiro, and to prevent the conflict that would necessarily arise were the proceedings taken in the two Courts to be presented concurrently, and trustees appointed for both Courts, he asked that the order by adjudication should be annulled or the proceedings in this Court stayed.