THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7362, 7 November 1887, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT-IN BANKRUPTCY/. (Before Mr justice Williams, j „ ; , The pales of Charles Nicholson, George 'BertinshaW, and George Wilson Briajre's came up in the form of application* for orders of dißoharge. There was no applearanoe of any of the parties concerned, and the Assignee stating that the oases were still in the same position, they were ordered to stand over. RE 8. S. HUTCHISON. Application for order of discharge. The Assignee suggested that thiß case should be struck out, and His Honor concurred. RE HENRY BURROWS. Mr J. Maogregor appeared in support of the application for an order of discharge, His Honor said there was no reason why the order should not be granted. RE WItAIAM BRIDGMAN. Mr J. Macgregor made a similar application in this case. His Honor said that he noticed from the documents that the Assignee had accepted an offer of L3OO for the whole estate. That would give a fair dividend. The Assignee replied that the dividend would be a fair one. There was a claim on behalf of the bank, who would not fall in with the action taken; otherwise there would have been a good dividend. His Honor said that this seemed to be simply a case of depreciation of property. Had the Assignee any complaint to make ? The Assignee answered in the negative, and added that two of the principal creditors had assented to his acceptance of the L3OO offered. Order granted. RE J. 11. TAYLOR. Mr North applied for leave to sell the assets for L2OO, and Mr J. Macgregor to support the application for an order of discharge. There was no opposition, and His Honor granted both applications. RE OWEN MULMRK.

Mr J. Macgregor appeared for Mr Stewart in support of the application for an order of discharge. The Assignee said that it was a very clear case; but there was one matter that he would like to mention, in respect to a claim of Ll9 for wages, for which a cheque had been given in April last. That cheque had been kept in hand; and it was a question whether the claim was entitled to rank as a preferential claim, it having been proved on within sixty days of the bankruptcy. He had, however, enough money in hand to satisfy that claim if necessary. His Honor asked what the facts of the case were, and in reply The Assignee said that the statement was filed on the 14th September. He had been told that the cheque had been held for some time. Claimant had proved on the cheque, His Honor remarked that if this creditor had proved on the cheque, it was clear that he took it as payment. The Assignee said that was so, He had been advised that so far as the sons were concerned they would withdraw their claim if necessary, so as to enable their father to fet through. That was, if this claim of )rummond's did not stop the proceedings. His Honor thought that it did; but, after some further discussion on the point,

The Assignee said that he would point out that the man was not in the employ of the bankrupt within sixty days of the bankruptcy. His Honor said that that being the case, the whole question was got rid of at once. Of course the sons would have to withdraw their claim ; if thoy did, the bankrupt could get through. He (His Honor) was not sure, however, that there ought not to be something more than a mere withdrawal—there ought, he thought, to be a release by deed. He would settle it in this way: If tho claim were withdrawn in writing, the bankrupt could have his discbarge. BE GEORGE HALLY. Application for order of discharge. Mr D. D. Macdonald appeared for the bankrupt. The Assignee said that there were two or three points on which he would like to question the bankrupt. Bankrupt, on oath, stated that the account of Hally and Co., of Scotland, for LI, 148 3a 8d had nothing to do with his father's claim of LI ,620 mentioned in his statement. The sum spoken of was for goods of their own the firm had sent out to bankrupt. The draft for L3OO that he received in August, 1886, was received from his father when the George street premises were extended. That draft was one of two, each for the same amount, received from his father. His father left the firm about three years ago. Ho had never told his bookkeeper to open an account for his father. The Assignee remarked that there was no entry in the books in the father's favor. Bankrupt being further questioned as to his father's connection with the Dunedin firm, said that he thought the L3OO came from the Scottish firm and was guaranteed by his father 1 The Assignee said that a profit and loss account had been opened in the books, but no entries had been made. Why was that account never made up ? Bankrupt could not say. The Assignee asked whether bankrupt had ever made up a statement of bis assets and liabilities ?

Bankrupt replied that he had not, but his book-keeper had. The statement was made up at every stock-taking. The Assignee thought that if such a statement had been made up, it must still be in existence ; to which remark Bankrupt replied that he had given up the keys of his safe to the Assignee, and all his private papers had also been handed over.

The Assignee submitted that money in this estate was still due to the father, and would point out that the law makes it an offence to trade on fictitious capital. This sort of thing was becoming too frequent. The creditors had been, deceived ; and the bankrupt had been heard to say that he had L 1,500 worth of stock. Mr Macdonald objected to this as incorrect.

Bankrupt said that he had never signed a till in Dunedin until six months ago. M.r Butterworth could have been paid in cash, but he preferred to tike a bill so as to get bankrupt in his books. The Assignee: Do you think he would have taken your bill if he had known you had no capital ? Bankrupt: But I had capital. His Honor thought that this matter should be settled before the bankrupt came up for his order of discharge. If the goods in question belonged to his father, it was clear that the bankrupt was trading on borrowed capital; if they were a gift, the bankrupt had made certain mis-statements. Whichever was the fact, there was sufficient reason why an immediate discharge should not be given. He would make no order at present; the case could come up again. The Court then rose. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs H. Gourley and A. .Bartleman, J.P.s.) Drunkenness. — Charles Murray, found lying drunk on the railway line, was convicted and discharged, it being his first offence. An Old Offender.— Margaret Docherty, charged with drunkenness and having no visible means of support, pleaded hard to be let off.—The Bench decided to give her another chance to leave town. Should she not do so immediately, she would be brought up for vagrancy and sentenced to a long term.

Riotous Behavior. —Eliza Hirikling alias Fanny Norton, for riotous behavior, was convicted and ordered to leave the City, otherwise she would have to undergo three months' imprisonment. Obstructing the police.— Neil M'Kinnon for attempting to rescue the last-named prisoner, was fined 10s, or twenty-four hours'.

Embezzlement. Charles Wilkins was charged with having received from John Crane the sum of L 3 Is 3d, and at other divers times received other sums of money, appropriating them to his own use. Accused was further charged with having stolen two cases of hop bitters, value L 3 ss, the property of William Grant.—Mr Thornton, who appeared for the accused, asked for an adjournment. His client had been before the Ceurt on Saturday morning on another charge, and had only been served with a summons since then. The present charge arose simply through complication of accounts, but through pressure of time he had;been unable to work up his defence.— Mr Adams opposed the adjournment.—The Bench granted an adjournment till Monday next. ..