SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume VII, Issue 793, 15 May 1865, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

THE DEBTORS' ASD CREDITORS' ACT, 1862. (In Chambers, May 12, before his Honor Mr. Justice Gresson.)

The following case under the Debtors' and Creditors' Act is so important that we call the attention of the creditors in various estates to it.

Mr. Wynn Williams, on Tuesday last, obtained a rule nisi calling upon Mr. Francis Slater, solicitor, to show cause why he should not pay into Court a sum of £127, received by him from some of tho debtors in the estate of H. D. Manning, who filed his petition in October 1563 ; it appearing that Mr. Slater had iiir curred costs to the amount of £167 ss. 4d. in collecting the debts, and in other matters connected with the estate, and that he was under the impression that he was entitled to hold the moneys received by him against his costs. Dr. Foster appeared on behalf of Mr. Slater to show cause against tho rule, and Mr. Wynn Williams in support. Dr. Foster occupied the Court for some time in his endeavors to persuade the Court that Mr. Slater's view of the matter was correct, and that the petitioner's solicitor had a right to collect the debts, and also that he had a lien upon the money for his costs.

His Honor, however, from the very commencement of Dr. Foster's arguments, strongly dissented from such a view of the case, and in unmistakable terms, pointed out tho impropriety of a solicitor doing anything of the kind, and also stated that if the Court sanctioned such proceedings there would not be the slightest chance of anything being saved for the creditors in any estate. Dr. Foster begged to assure his Honor that in the absence of any provisions in the Act for the collection of the debts, the solicitors in Christchurch had invariably made it a practice to collect the debts.

His Honor said he did not know anything about such a practice existing, but if it did, it was quite wrong. After a lengthened argumentative conversation between his Honor and Dr. Foster, the Court his Honor said would not sanction such proceedings, and should certainly make the rule absolute at once, without calling upon counsel in support of the rule, unless Mr. Williams wished to make any remark. Mr. Williams said that after what had fallen from the Court it was of course unnecessary for him to detain liis Honor any longer, but he wished to state that Dr. Foster was quite wrong as to its being a" rule in the profession to act in the same manner in insolvent estates as Mr. Slater had done, hut that on the contrary, the solicitors here knew where their duties commenced and where they ended, and that he behoved only two solicitors in Christchurch had ever acted up to the rule mentioned by Dr. Foster, and that he felt certain no other solicitor in the city would allow such to bo the case. Mr. Williams then went at some length into the question of lien set up by Dr. Foster, but the Court being so strongly against Dr. Foster, there was no necessity for his doing more than merely alluding to the cases, without going into them. However, one important case deserves to be reported, it was the following :—ln Bankruptcy before Mr. Commissioner Ayrton, in re Long. It appeared that a sum of £11 had been paid by the bankrupt to his solicitor, upon hearing this the Commissioner said "he would not allow the bankrupt to pass under these circumstances; it is an inflexible rule that the bankrupt may not pay away a single farthing after his bankruptcy ; once break that rule and where is a Btop to be made ? If a bankrupt offers money to a solicitor, it is the duty of tlie solicitor to refuse it; to inform the bankrupt that it is illegal in the bankrupt to pay money, and illegal for the solicitor to accept it, and should give him to understand that the very offer is a species of affront." Mr. Williams concluded by moving that the rule be made absolute in terms of the rule nisi, with costs.

His Honor : The rule must be made absolute with costs, the money repaid, and documents delivered within 14 days.