Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
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.

SUPREMECOURT.-INBANKRUPTCY.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

Re John Ford. —Motion for order of discharge. Mr Thornton, who appeared for the bankrupt, said that in this case if a bill for L 720 had been excluded there would have been 20s in the £, —His Honor asked the Assignee what the result would have been had tho bill been excluded.—The Assignee said that a dividend of 7s Gd in the £ would have been payable.—His Honor : Then he would still have been insolvent ? The Assignee: Undoubtedly. My point in the case is that the bankrupt has been incompetent—not that he has done any wrong, but he has made a terrible muddle of his affairs.—His Honor said that the giving of the bill by the bankrupt to his father rendered him unable to pay his debts. It was clear tbat tho case was one in which the discharge should be suspended. Bankrupt’s discharge suspended for two years. Re George Latimer.— Motion for order of discharge. Mr J, Macgregor appeared for bankrupt.—The Assignee said that he had, since the case was last before the Court, received intimations from the Hon. G. M‘Lean and Mr J. Mills that they were neither partners nor agents for bankrupt, and Mr J. R. Sinclair had thereon withdrawn all objection to bankrupt getting his discharge.—Order of discharge granted. Re Donald Alexander Ross and James Colin Ross.— Motion for order of discharge. Mr Wilkinson appeared for the bankrupt.— Order of discharge granted. Re Peter Rankin. —Motion for order of discharge. Mr Callaway, who appeared for bankrupt, said that the defendant filed so long ago as February, 1887.—His Honor said that the case, if it had been a recent one, was such that the discharge should bo suspended for a time; but it appeared that it had been for a long time before the Court.— The Assignee said that two of the creditors had been through the accounts, and they found no evidence of wilful misconduct on bankrupt’s part.—His Honor said there seemed to be no suggestion of fraud, and the order of discharge would be granted. Re William Bransgbove.— Motion for order of discharge,—Mr J, A. D, Adams, who appeared tor the bankrupt, said that the papers in this case had been filed a little later than they should have been, but possibly His Honor might overlook that fact and hear the application now.—His Honor said there was never urgency for the discharge of a bankrupt, especially when he did not pay a dividend. The case would stand over till next sitting day. Be John Caldee and William M'Laren. —Creditors’petition for adjudication. Mr Hosking appeared in support of the petition ; Mr Fraser on behalf of the debtors.— After evidence had been taken His Honor made an order for adjudication.

CITY POLICE COURT,

(Before Mr J. M, Ritchie, J.P.)

Drunkenness. —Two first offenders were convicted and discharged. Emma Brown (eight previous convictions) was fined 10a, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Drake v. Reid. —ln this previouslyheard case Hia Worship now gave judgment as follows:

This is a claim for damage ta plaintiff’s sheep by defendant's dog. The plaintiff’s evidence as to the extent of damage is by no means satisfactory. It is not the first case of the kind he has brought into Court, and therefore he should know the value of evidence to corroborate his own statements ; bat there is very little in support of what ho says. It is not even clear that he. caught defendant's dog in the act of worrying his sheep, as he says he did, for it has been sworn he admitted he bad not done so; bat the evidence satisfies me this far ; that the dog strayed from its home, was seen and caught on plaintiff’s land, and that a dead sheep was found there at the time which had been recently worried to death. There is, of course, a strong presumption that the sheep had been killed by that dog, and tint any other damage of a like kind done there about the same time was also done by the dog. The question is : What damage was actually done ? The plaintiff has but a small farm of eighty acres, in two paddocks, and if there was the large amount of damage which he says there was, it woold have been easily seen ; and I would have thought, as he had possession of the dog, and the means of fixing it upon its owner, that he wonld have at once mustered his sheep or taken some other means to ascertain the extent of the damage. Had he done so, and have called in someone who was without personal interest in the matter, he wonld have bad no difficulty now in producing reasonable proof of the actual damage. I have now the evidence of three witnesses that to each of them plaintiff has made statements as to the damage, which differs considerably from what he said before me. Mr Jenkins says he showed him two sheepskins, and told him he had had two sheep killed and two others worried. This witness is apparently disinterested, and I see no reason to doubt his evidence; and if it is true, then the plaintiff has now grossly exaggerated the extent of tbe damage. Other things point in the same direction. He claims foe ten sheep in lamb as driven from his paddock by the dog and lost, but in cross-examination he admitted that his sheep frequently trespassed from his land, and that he got them again. It would be very strange if sheep that got out of bis paddock are lost to him only when there is a prospect of his recovering damages for their loss. I am not satisfied that the damage extends beyond the value of four sheep, say 40s, less value of their skins (10s). Judgment for 30s, with costs (53s fid). G. L. Denniston and James Mills (trustees of J. R. Scott and Co.) v. John Swan.— Claim, L 37 Gs 3d, balance due on coals sup* plied. Mr F. R. Chapman appeared for the plaintiffs; Sir R. Stout for the defendant. The hearing of this case was resumed.—Sir R, Stout explained that defendant had put in a set-off for L 36 4s, and had paid LI 2s 3d into Court. The plaintiffs were suing as assignees in the estate of J. R. Scott and Go., coal importers. The question was whether the debt was due at the time the assignment was made. There was a rival company running steamers, and Scott wished to prevent this new company from cutting into the coal trade in New Zealand. He therefore interviewed the coal merchants in jpauedin, and said that if they agreed to reduce their price for Newcastle coal to 24a per ton he would allow them the difference between that and what it cost them. He interviewed Swan amongst others, and told him that if he would agree to sell at 24s he (Scott) would make up the difference, asking him at the same time to put an advertise* ment in the newspapers. This was done, and the coal was sold at 245. No rebate had been allowed, as promised.—Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs. [Left sitting.]

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/ESD18890923.2.19

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8019, 23 September 1889

Word Count
1,216

THE COURTS-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8019, 23 September 1889

Working