IN BANKRUPTCY.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8521, 28 June 1893, Page 2

IN BANKRUPTCY.

Bis Honour sat in bankruptcy at 11 a> m. Discharges. "Orders"of discharge were made as under: —Re Henry Mottram {Mr Russell*; re Henry Ashraeal Kent (Mr Donnelly). . BE ADOLPH BOHLSSINGER. Mr Thomas appeared to ask for the discharge of the bankrupt. The prosecution which had been commenced against him for sellifag forged stamps had really broken up his business altogether. The- Magistrate held that whibb the bankrupt held himself put; as an expert bo must take the consequences of forged stamps being found in his possession, bat there was no proof that he held the stamps knowing them to be forged; His Honour said he bad before him the report of the Official Assignee, in .which were matters which might be explained either as perfectly innocent or shown to be the re verse, as, however* the investigation would require to be j/ar more elaborate apd thorough than could be the oae* theo, and also looking to the fact that neither the creditors nor the Official Assignee proposed to take any steps, he had no alternative but to assume that the matters he had referred to were capable of explanation. The order of discharge would be granted, FIXING PAY. The usual orders for fixing the day to apply for discharge were made as under:— Re Alfred John Burgess (Mr Bruges), Henry Rodda (Mr Salter). : , uw, s. mabsh. l In this cage Mr Wilding, for the Official Assignee, appeared to ask lor an order declaring a certain bill of sale, given ,by. the bankrupt to' John Ferguson void, on the ground that the security had been given at a time when the debtor was bankrupt, with intent to defeat and delay his creditors, all his available property being handed over to Mr Ferguson under this bill of sale. Mr !„ 8.. Fisher (instructed by Mr Deacon) appeared on behalf of Mr Ferguson contra. ... The evidence in the case had been taken at a former sitting, and the law points now came up for argument, Mr Wilding submitted that the bill of sale given, including the whole of the property of the debtor, must be taken to be a fraudulent preference and the learned counsel cited a number of oasts in support of hie contention. Mr Fisher, in reply, contended that the bankrupt- had not given the bill of sale in any way to defeat or defraud his creditors, but had done co under pressure,'. His Honour said he was quite clear from the evidence that the bankrupt bad given the bill oi sale reluctantly and only oa the screw being put on by Ferguses, ..■'". .Mr .Fisher went on to submit that aoder section 3 of the Act the transaction was a protected one, whether looked at under the Chattels Transfer Act or under the Chattels Security Act. In this case valuable con* sideratkm had been gives by two years' time,, the fixing up the old security* a»d maso by Ferguson to the bankrupt. He submitted that the Chattels .Transfer Acfc, being the last de* claration of the mind .of the Legislature, section 3 protected those instruments which under the Chattels Security Act—for which the Chattels Transfer Act was sufestitja* tionary— were voided as against the Official Assignee. The learned counsel then proceeded to cite several eases in support* pf his contention that the giving the bill of sale by the bankrnpjj was not an act of bankruptcy. After further argument his Honour took time to' considers '' '""'