Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS—TO DAY.

I SUPREMECOURT.—INBANKRUPXCY. } (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) 3 He David Betuune. —Motion for order I of discharge (Mr A. Bathgate). The , Assignee reported that the case was purely [ one of misfortune.—Order made, r He John Ford. —Motion for order closing [ bankruptcy, fixing date of application for k order of discharge, and for payment of debtor’s solicitor’s costs (Mr Thornton), — Order made. He Charles Vincent Brewer. —Motion for order of discharge (Mr Calvert). The Official Assignee said that the Colonial Bank opposed the application on the ground that they bad been deceived as to the bankrupt’s position. He had given bills to Proctors, Jones, and Co., and these had been discounted by the bank. The bank i said that Proctors, Jones, and Co. knew that i the bankrupt was insolvent at the time. His Honor said he could not see how the , bankrupt had deceived the bank, i The Assignee said he had been continually creating bills that he must have known were i not worth 20s in the £, and they were disi counted by the bank. His Honor said that even if a man was > not worth 20s in the £it was no reason why he should not give a bill for a debt that he r owed. He did not see that it was a representation to anybody that he was worth 20s in the £. In this case Proctors, Jones, and Co. were the acting parties. Mr Calvert said that, as to the question of bankrupt’s not having filed sooner, he took 5 stock three years ago, and found that he was . worth 15s in the £. He was dealing princi- " pally with Proctors, Jones, and Co,, and he , therejore placed his position before them. They said they thought he would be able to pull through, and insisted on his not filing his schedule. They thought that one or two good seasons would pull him through, and they also proposed getting him a partner and opening a drapery branch of > the business. Until Proctors, Jones, and - Co. filed, bankrupt had no idea but that I they were a wealthy firm ; he knew that • Proctor had a quantity of money in his » family, and never anticipated their filing. i His Honor: What kind of reputation 3 had Proctors, Jones, and Co. before they filed? 6 The Assignee : Well, I had heard rumors about them for some considerable time ” before they filed, but it is quite clear from : the large credits—amounting to LSOO, L6OO, ! L7OO, and so on—given to them by large < firms in the City that these latter had an * idea that Proctors, Jones, and Co. would pull 1 through.' His Honor : Has a day been fixed for the hearing of the application for Proctors, Jones, and Co.’s order of discharge? The Assignee said that it bad not yet, but he supposed it would be fixed during the week. His Honor : How does the bankrupt’s estate come out ? The Assignee said it would pay 3s or 4s in tho £. Proctors, Jones, and Co.’s estate would pay about the same, as far -as he could judge; there would bo about 7s 6d between the two estates. His Honor said there was no doubt that 1 bankrupt should have filed long ago, still 1 his conduct had been extenuated by the relations that had subsisted between him and Proctors, Jones, and Co, They were his largest creditors. He believed them to be a wealthy firm, and they asked him not to file. The bankrupt should, however, have filed before, but, as there were extenuating circumstances of considerable strength, he (His Honor) would simply suspend his discharge for three months. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Eaq., R.M.) Dr Tee van v. Ellis Loftman.—Claim, L2 Ss, for professional attendance. Mr Callaway appeared for plain tiff, for whom judgment was given by default. Equitable Insurance Association v. Thos. M‘Gill (Invercargill).—Claim, L4O 19s Id, on account of calls.—Judgment by default. Henry Jeffs v. Joseph Harvey.—Claim, L 3 15s, for goods supplied. Mr Meatyard appeared for plaintiff. Defendant disputed one or two of the items.—His Worship, after examining the account and receipts, gave judgment for plaintiff for L2 18s 6d and costs. Cramond v, Crawford.—His Worship gave judgment as follows in this previously-heard case:—“ The main question in dispute is os to the amount of rent due by John Crawford, for which defendant had a right to distrain. The evidence is very contradictory, but there is no doubt in my mind that defendant has made a different statement as to the rate of the weekly rental, and that she has shaped her claim to shield her son’s property. lam not satisfied with her evidence, and in the absence of anything to corroborate what she has stated, I think it improbable that her son was tenant of her honse for something like ten weeks while paying rent for the occupation of another house. The tenancy most probably commenced when he entered into occupation, somewhere about the beginning of April, and from that time to the beginning of July no more than thirteen weeks’ rent could have accrued due, which at 5s a week, the rate which Mr Adams has sworn she at first said was the rent, would amount to L 3 6s. As to the question whether the last three weeks' rent was distrainable, I am not satisfied that tho decision in Finlinson v. Reid (6 N.Z. G.R., S.C.) applies to a verbal weekly tenancy. Judgment for plaintiff for L 3 15s and costs of Court (19s), witnesses’ expenses (375), and solicitor’s fee (10s 6d).” James Gilraour v. John Calder and William M‘Laren. Claim, LSI 17s fid, for timber supplied. Mr Sim appeared for plaintiff; Mr Fraser for defendant Calder. Mr Sim said that the claim was for goods sold in connection with a contract in which Calder was alleged to have been a partner. The evidence he (Mr Sim) proposed to call was very much the same as that which was adduced in Thomson, Bridget, and Co. v. Calder, heard before His Worship.—Evidence on behalf of plaintiff was given by William M'Laren (who did not dispute liability excepting as to certain of the prices charged), Frederick Wells, James Gilmour, Hugh M‘Donald. William Wyper, William M‘Laren, and William Gould.—Mr Fraser admitted that hj» learned friend’s case was a strong one. He denied, however, that there was any evidence as to direct liability on defendant’s part. He referred at some length to theevidence adduced, stating that the state ments made were highly unsatisfactory, and :in some instances deserving of suspicion.— Evidence on behalf of defendant was given by John Calder, after which the case was adjourned for a week on the application of Mr Fraser. D. M. Spedding v. T. F. Adams.—Claim, L 5, for damage done to articles while being carried by defendant from Clyde to Dunedin. Mr Thornton appeared for plaintiff; Mr Hodgkins for defendant,—Aftec counsel

for plaintiff had stated the case a number of witnen‘«‘« were called, but the cane had not chiic’ml oi when we went to press. CITY PULff'K > OGRi. (Before Messrs J. Logan ami A. Moliisou, jr.p.s.) Drunkenness.— For this offence William Yearn unns was Irani ">s, iu default twentyfour hours’ imprisonment, Xalhanui Under was fined 40s, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment, there being a charge of disorderly behaviour preferred against him. For a simitar charge Henry M'Ouire was fined LI, in i'.fanic seven days’ imprisonment, Je.tnr. s (.'lark, against whom there 1 were charges of being drunk and disorderly and of assaulting a constable while in tho execution of his duty, pleaded guilty to the first charge, but said he did not remember striking the arresting constable. After the evidence of Constables Mathieson and Christie had been taken accused was fined "hj, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment on the first charge, while on the second charge he was fined L2 2s, in default fourteen days’ imprisonment. Donald Henderson Gilbert and John AH pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly. Gilbert was fined 20s, iu default seven days’ imprisonment; while M'Arthur was fined 20s, in default ten days’ hard labor. Larcknv. Edward M'Covmick was charged with stealing, on the 14th hist., an overcoat, valued at LG, the property of William .Smith. Accused pleaded guilty.— Chief-detective Henderson said that accused and the prosecutor resided at the Central Restaurant. The coat had been left in the sitting room, and accused took the article and pawned it in the Ballarat Pawn Office. When arrested at Woodhaugh accused admitted taking the coat, but said he had experienced bad luck since he came to the colony, and was tempted to steal it. Accused had been sentenced to one month’s imprisonment at Oainaru shortly after his arrival from Sydney, for being a rogue and vagabond, and was then found to have a number of skeleton keys in his possession.— Accused asked for another chance, saying that he had had no food, and was hungry when he stole the coat. Ho was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, with hard abor.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890819.2.20

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS—TO DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7989, 19 August 1889

Word Count
1,506

THE COURTS—TO DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7989, 19 August 1889

Working