SUPREM K COURT.—J N BANKRUPTCY. (Before Mis Honor Mr Justice Williams.\ /.V ALKfANUKK Gr.s'N,—Application for order of discharge (Mr W. Mucgrpgor). — 0.-der granted. /,V JoiJN Wiucik.— Application for order of uischurgo (Mr Farnie). —Order granted. I!r Wn.u,ujlli'.\'i>!'ns<)N'. -Application for order of discharge (Mr J. Macgregor).--Order made,. 7,V Thomas Buoamvav.— Application for order fur payment of Ollicial Assignee's costs (Mr Solomon).—Order granted. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. 11. Carew, Esq., R.M.) Henry Pickford v. John R. Jordan.— Claim, LI 43 (id, on a judgment summons. Mr Milne appeared for plaintiff.— Defendant Baid that he was in regular employment at 30s per week —seven days in the week, but he had a wife and six children to support, and had the doctor in the house.— His Worship said that he did not see how the man could do more than support his family.—The case would be dismissed. M. Moss v. Joseph L. Cre.quer.—Claim, LlO 3a (id, on a judgment Bummons. Mr Solomon for plaintiff; defendant did not appear.—Plaintiff in the course of his evidence said that defendant was an undischarged bankrupt.—His Worship thought that this practically hatred the issuing of an order, as it could not be enforced.—Mr Solomon contended that bankruptcy did not make any rjifference in makipg the order, but it might make a differpnee in putting the man ioto gaol. Before an order could be enforced it would be necessary that the leave of the Bankruptcy Court should be obtained. It was never intended that a man by filing aud doing nothing more should get out of his debts. The very point was before the Judge last week in Harty v. Marr, when His Honor said that he did not want to make an order in the absence of the defendant, but if the defendant did not appear the proper thing was to make an order. The order could not be put in force against him without the leave of the Bankruptcy Court, and before an order of imprisonment was made the plaintiff would have to satisfy the Bankruptcy Court that the defendant bad been misbehaving himself in the matter.—His Worship said that he did not understand this to be a judgment by His Honor, but merely a passing opinion. The matter might, however, stand over for a week, to give him (Mr Carew) time to consider the point. A. Tapper and Co. v. James Houston.— Claim, L 49 4s 9d, goods supplied and work done. Mr Solomon for plaintiff.—Judgment by default. Bing, Harris, and Co. v. George R. Moore (of Gisborne).— Claim, L 23 9s lOd, on a promissory note and interest. Mr Hodgkins for plaintiffs.—Judgment by default. --.
Ross and Glendining v. W. J. Claxton (of Thames).—Claim, LSS 16s Sd, on a dishonored hill.—Judgment by default. Equitable Insurance Association v. John Ritchie (of Tamaki).—Claim, L 3 17s 6d, calls due.—Judgment by default.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS.-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7977, 5 August 1889
THE COURTS.-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7977, 5 August 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.