SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XIII, Issue 1730, 24 September 1868, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Tuesday, September 22. [Before Mr Justice Gresßon.] His Honor took his seat in tho Court Chambers at eleven o'clock. BE THOMAS HAB9AL-, DECEASED. On the application of Mr Nottidge, probata was granted to the widow of the Into Thom_ Hassail, the solo executrix named in tho will. BE O. W. SMITH, DECEASED. In this case, Mr Harper applied for an orfe declaring the father of tho deceased to bo tha heir-at-law. The learned counsel stated that the case had been a long while before the Court, as letters of administration wera granted to Mr Calvert when that gentleman was Registrar of tho Court. Tho petition vrss filed in August, 1866, bat owing to the value of the real estate not having been ascertained at the time was not brought before tho Coustj nor had the order declaring the father to ba heir-at-law been made. The petitioner's attorney, Mr Small, had since sold the peal estate, and some difficulty having arisen about the title the present application waa raado in consequence. His Honor pointed out that the Act (Real Estate Administration Act, 1866,) _nd?r which the application was made had beers repealed ; and that the petition gave no iaformation whatever about tho real estate, but merely aßked that the petitioner should bo declared heir-at-law and put in possession of the estate. Under these circumstances bo could not make the order applied for. No order was therefore made. In Banco, kbaeon and othebs, obeditobs, v. bymdfs« ton and o.thebb.

t This case, in which the Court is anted to • docide upon the construction of a certain deed ' of assignment made by Messrs Knight and ' Scrivener, had stood ovor for argumont. ' t Mr Harper appeared for plaintiffs jMr W, ' Williams for defendants. ' ; Mr Harper asked for an adjournment as ' the special case had only been made out on L the previous evening. 1 Mr W. Williams did not see how tho c„s could go on, as his clients, upon reconsidering the matter, had come to the conclusion that ) they could not concur in the statement of l facta which had been set out to enable the f Court to decide upon the construction of tho • deed; inasmuch as they did not believe them i to be facts. After some argument, the Court directed ' the case to stand over. ' wait, and othebs v. miles and othebs. [ This was an application arising out of the ; case of Miles and others v. Waitt and others, , lately tried before a special jury, in whioh a [ verdict for £1,700 was given for plaintiffs. , Mr Duucan now moved for a rule nisi, calling on the plaintiffs in the action to show cause j. why the proceedings should not be set aside • iand a new trial ordered, on the following I grounds—(l). For the wrong admisaionof a certain wool security dated the3lst December, ; 1866, made between MajorH. E. Reader and , the plaintiffs; it not being sot out in plaintiff's i declaration. (2). For the wrong rejection of . the evidence of Mr H. P. Murray-Aynsley, , made on behalf of defendants. (3). For the wrong admission of the evidence of I Mr T. M. Hassell to prove the possession by , tho plaintiffs of tho wool in the declaration [ mentioned on behalf of the plaintiffs, and for the misdirection of his Honor; his Honor ! having directed the jury that there was cvi« , dence to go to them of the facts of tho plain- . tiffs' possession and ownership of the said wool, l and that his Honor the Judge wrongly refused to nonsuit the plaintiffs, on the ground, as defendants contended, that they had not proved a sufficient title as against defendants to the will, and that there was no evidence of the plaintiffs' title to the wool to go to the jury. The defendants now moved for a , rule, on the ground that the defence ws« void.' by reason of the defect in their plea, and tbft^ in the meantime all proceedings bo stayed. <,; His Honor intimated that he at preeout saw no reason to believo that his ruling on the points raised by Mr Duncan at the trial WSB erroneous. The Court would, howerer, grant the conditional rule, and direct that it ba made returnable on Friday. Mr Duncan asked, as probably the Court's decision would in any event be appealed against, whether the appeal could go bsfor© the Court at its next sittings. His Honor said it could. CBAWJOBD V. LB CBEN. Mr Harper said this was the same case 83 that of Crawford v. the Timaru Landing Company, which was lately before tho Court; but it bad been found necessary to altar the title of the action. Counsel on both sides hud agreed upon the points to bo laid before the Court of Appeal; and he now applied for an order directing tho removal af tho demurrer to the Court of Appeal. Mr Garrick said he did not wish to epposa tho application, but hoped his learned mend would undertake that the caso should really be gone on with. Mr Harper said he fully intended to go OQ with the case, unless unforeseen oircumstaccßa should arise to prevent him. j The order was made. In Banbbttptcy. BE ALEXANDEB JAMEfI lESMK. On tho application of Mr W. Williams, en order was mudo directing tho release of this bankrupt from custody, tho snaintea-CO money not having been paid. BBXOr/IS BcELINEE. Dr Foster, who appeared on behalf of the bankrupt, said Mr Garrick and himself had agreed to ask the Court to grant an order of discharge, all costs to be paid by the bankrupt, but they wished his Honor to giro °B opinion upon thrco points, and to embody that opinion in the order. Tho first woa, whether Mr Pratt, the detaining creditor, waa entitled to hnve the maintouence money which he had paid in order to keep tho debtor in gaol charged as costs upon the oatate ; tho second whether Mr Nosholski was entitled to be paid a sum of ££ 8$ uad«r these) c|reu_4*

*«*-after Berliner had committed an act •ffcakruptcy, he paid Nashelski this amount Sationof an account due to the latter, a receipt for the payment, but v Jfr afterwards the clerk of his learned • j hroueht back the money and put it in loir's pecket Berliner threw it on the. **%dandsiu- he had nothing to do with it S'third point was what was the exact sum to SfrMcKenzie, of Timaru, on account & 8 *\ timber. With reference to the first f the learned counsel argued that Pratt P* j, entitled in law to have the main ten- *** nionev refunded ; on the second point, ???„e debt had been actually liquidated, bankrupt held a receipt for the pay**T«> tbatNashelski had no longer any claim 13 the estate; and on the third point that Btt_3e was only entitled to £23. whoappeared for Mr Twenty- „ the trustee, Jopposed Dr Foster's arguwas of opinion that Pratt was ntitled to be paid the maintenance 851 .» and that the payment made to Nash_w__ inralid. With regard to McKenzie'e agreed that it should stand at Treadwell applied, under the 161 st J!L of the Bankruptcy Act, for an order !!___ hime twentieth of the property conPt. h- the bankrupt, information of which KSiiTen to the trustee. Mr Garrick pointed out to the Court that ,JT application only affected a part of the tekrupfs estate, as Mr Twentyman would in erect give the applicant a twentieth of his Seofthe property recovered Br Foster opposed the application, on the JL& that at the time of the alleged disbar of the property, Mr Twentyman was 2S;e legal trustee; and moreover that there 3fs"proof tuat tlie Dantru P t intended to property, as he had never had an !Srtunity oi declaring it. M&Gsrrkk thought Mr Twentyman might fe considered as legally the provisional trusjjj, bat admitted the difficulty raised in the 5&Bonor considered there was no proof bsfee the Court that the bankrupt intended to eoDcesl his property, and the application -at therefore be refused. ;r_« order was then made as applied for. Inreplr to the Court, ■Qt Foster said the bankrupt would pay ia creditors 20s in the £ ; 17s 6d immediately, E>. 2s Si when the last bdl was met. BE DAVID SHAW. Ob the application of Mr Bamford, an I «-| ero f adjudication was made in this case, 1 0 a Wednesday, the 13th October, at eleven I fixed as the time for the meeting of 1 cw-tca. I ILLEGAL CONVEYANCING-. | Mr Gtrriek drew his Honor's attention to 1 tmeike wMon was becoming prevalent of I Esotherised persons—accountants and comtskfoa agents especially—preparing conveyiß«s, affidavits, and documents connected titi proceedings in bankruptcy, which ought pnffly to be drawn up by professional men. faaober of cases had come under his notice; _jj itras done so openly that these persons sren brought the documents to solicitors' (fa in order to swear the afiidavits. The ; mfession, however, now refused to swear i sshaSdaviU; and as it was possible applicant might-be made to the Registrar to swear ■ „ gffldavits, he would ask his Honor to I ttgutt'tiie Registrar not to take an affidavit i prepared by any one bat a solicitor ; and also \ I bring the matter before the notice of the I Jadgeaof tho Court of Appeal. Dr Foster and Mr Bamford both testified I _ fts prevalency of the practice complained ' „ty Mr Garrick. Sit Honor had suspected the existence of : Beh a practice, and thought the profession ' _onld take Bteps to punish the offenders. „» Registrar would, of course, refuse to take j tSdants m&de by unauthorised persons, but i the Court "saw no "objection to persons pre:l paring their own affidavits, bb oircumstances ! might tender them unable to employ profesj lional assiataacs. He would with pleasure 1 Mag the matter before the notice of the Court '„" of /Ippeal; and wished the profession would °1 pi np a Law Society for the protection both f _-emßslres and of the public.