SUPREME COURT. IN BANCO. This Day.

Evening Post, Volume XXIII, Issue 61, 15 March 1882, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. IN BANCO. This Day.

(Before hia Honour, Mr. Jdstfce Richmond.) in" th£ sßtatb ojp k. w. mlmi9, a dsbtob (summons removbd).- . , , Mr. Brandon, Jan., appeared in support of the summons, and Mr. W. T. L. Travers against. This was a summon* brought in Chambers, and it was agreed between the counsel engaged that it should VH J removed into Jtiauco, and that his Honour should decide on tho facts stated in the affidavit of Mr. Mills whether Mr. Arthur Anderson was entitled to prove on tho estate for the .Bum of £1000. Iha facta set out in Mr. Mills' - affidavit wore these: — That pri r ,io tho mtrrifgo of of his daughter to Mr. Anderson, of "Christehnreh, Mr. MilJif agreed to pay to his daughter the sttm of' .£IOO0 -aft her u>o*r£iage portion, and that subsequently, pa*tho%4th December, 1879, he confirmed that agreement, and with the consent' of tils 'daughter and Mr. Anderson, arranged .that he.(lfr. Mills) should have the use of tho said Bum on the payment of interest at the rate often pet cent, per annum, pi^fflatit^to betntde quarterly. On the same dayHUid , thereafter quarterly till December, 1880, he paid the Bnm of £25 interest. In March, 1881, he filed a declaration of insolvency, when Mr. Anderson proved on the'Oeatate for 41000. Subsequently, at the request of the trustees, he (Mr. Mills) made a statutory declaration in support of the proof of debt, but the proof waa disallowed. Mr. Brandon submitted that the arrangement to settle the JGIOOO was complete, and must lie taken as if tbe cash had acttßtirV been paid over on She day of marriage, and handed back againjw a loan. The question now between Asddrmnttad the estate was whether or not he lent Mr. Mill* the warn of j6 1000. His Honour h*kl that the whole arrangement was excessively vague. Mr. Brandon admitted -this,, as .tjierenwas only a verbal agreement. He urged, however, that Mr. Mill* could. luive bean come upon at any time for the £1000. Mr. 1 ravers argued Against the view taken by Mr. Brandon, asserting that the claim could not have been enforced Against Mr. jMillf. He quoted numerous authorities in *€pport of bis contention. His HdrtOttr dismissed the rule, holding that no legal right to a dividend ever existed. . , Netherlaod v. Bank' -of ftew Zealand (Napier). Mr. Chapman stated that the case had been heard at Napier, wjra\ hifljHonour reserved leave to enter a non-kuit. Aa the parties were likely to come to an understand* ing he would move pro forma for a ruli nt«t. Bule granted. CLIMIB V. COEFOKATION dr wktWNQTON. This case waa adjouraed for, a fortnight for hearing before the' Chief Justice. \