SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XVIII, Issue 2668, 18 November 1871, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

«. IN CHAMBERS. -

[Before his Honor Mr Justice Gresson.J His Honor sat in Chambers at 11 a.m. RE EDWARD WADMAN. The bankrupt, in person, applied for an order fixing date of last examination and discharge. His Honor made the order, fixing the date of the last examination for December 21. KB ROBERT MUNEO. Mr H. N. Nalder applied under the 207 th section of the Bankruptcy Act, for an order declaring complete execution of deed. Dr. Foster, on behalf of Mr A. Duncan, a creditor, appeared to oppose, and Mr Wynn Williams on behalf of the trustee (Mr H. Hawkins). Dγ Foster had obtained an order to examine witnesses and called— Harvey Hawkins, who deposed—l produce bill of sale dated 6th November, 1871, in accordance with the summons. It is made between myself and the debtor I produce current account between us. [Account put in]. That account shows the amount of money advanced by mc to the debtor in respect to which the bill of sale was given. That money was advanced on the 15th March, 1871. It was to pay off Hay's bill of sale that the money was advanced by mc. I understood that I took the place of Hay's bill of sale. I sold uuder my bill of sale on the 2nd of August, and sold all mentioned in the bill of sale. I sold before the principal and interest became due, because I was not satisfied with the security. I had the debtor's consent to sell. It was a stipulation in the deed that I could sell at any time I thought proper. The amount realised by the sale was £28& 14s 10d ; this was the net proceeds of the sale. I placed the whole o! the money to the debtor's credit in my books. I took the whole of this amount under Munro's orders, to liquidate my claim. I am still a creditor for about £360. The actual amount due on the bill of sale was £200. The rate of interest was 10 per cent. There was a creditor's meeting shortly after the sale at which I was present. I stated then what I have told you now, exactly the same. I do not remember any further statement than that made by mc now. I was appointed trustee under the deed of arrangement. I think about £50 has been realised by mc on the estate. I expect to realise more, but it will take some time, as most of the debtors are very poor. I considered the debtor solvent at the time I undertook to pay off Hay's mortgage. By Mr Williams—Was not aware that Munro was about to file his declaration at the time of the sale. I became first aware of it three or four days after the sale.

James Hay, examined by Mr Williams — I held a bill of sale from Munro before Mr Hawkins received his. I was present when the arrangement between Munro and Mr Hawkins took place. It was arranged that the surplus proceeds of the gale of the cattle after the bill of sale was satisfied, wag tp be placed at Munro's credit, in Mr Hawkins , books. It was on this arrangement that Mr Hawkins consented to advance the £200. H. N. Nalder corroborated the evidence given by Mr Hawkins relative to what occurred at the creditors' meeting. The case was adjourned for a week, in order to allow of counsel considering what course should be taken. CHUBCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES V. ROLLESTON AND ANOTHER. Mr George Harper for the plaintiffs. Mr Cowlishaw appeared on behalf of the Superintendent only, the Attorney-General being the other'defendant not represented by counsel. This was an application on behalf of the Church Property Trustees for an injunction restraining the Superintendent from proceeding with an earthwprk on the Harbor of Lyttelton/ by means of which, if the said Superintendent weie x\qs restrained the plaintiff* won id be prevented from the use and occupation of their waterf of sections Nos. 333, 334, and 335, which the plan annexed showed abutted on the deep waters of the harbour of Lyttelton. The declaration further set out that the said Superintendent had refused to allow any compensation to the plaintiffs by xeason of their alleged loss of water frontage, alleging that their rights were not at all or in any way different from, those of the general public. Mr Harper contended that their case rested upon the sixth paragraph of the declaration, in which it was stated, that the plaintiffs, if not restrained from erecting the embankment, tjjp defendant would be prevented from accc§s tp tfyeir. three gectlpni, and d.eprived also or! their water frontage, A lengthened argument between counsel on either eide ensued, and ultimately his Honor took time to consider the application. The Court then rose.