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-TODAY.

SUPREMBCOURT.—INBANKRUPTCY. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) RE WILLIAM BRANSOROVE. Motion for order of discharge. Mr A. S. Adams appeared on behalf of the debtor. The Assignee said that a point had arisen in connection with bankrupt’s furniture. The Equitable Company were not satisfied. The evidence was that it had been his wife’s, and was conveyed to her daughter by deed. Ho (the Assignee) would like to put bankrupt into the box and ask him one or two questions. Bankrupt, examined on oath, said that the furniture was wholly and solely his wife’s property. She derived it from money left to her by her father and an uncle. The whole of the furniture was bought out of that money, and there was not a shilling of his (bankrupt’s) money in it. There was a freehold property held by his wife. He could not state the value of it. That property was hers some twelve or fifteen years ago, and was bought with money the proceeds of a sale of property in Tasmania. The money obtained by this sale was applied to her separate use. The freehold was under a mortgage. He was now working as a butcher, and received a small salary. He had no property or expectations. In answer to His Honor, bankrupt said that the shares in the Equitable Company were taken up when the company was started.

The Assignee remarked that by section 131 of the prove for the amount of calls made before the bankruptcy in respect of the shares held by the bankrupt and not paid, and may claim for the value, estimated as the Court directs, of the liability to calls to be made within one year after the bankruptcy in respect of such shares.” His Honor: You say the company opposed his discharge ? The Assignee : yes, and still are dissatisfied as to the furniture. lam not. lam satisfied it belongs to his wife. In answer to Mr Adams, bankrupt said that depression in business was one reason why he filed, and another reason was that he was unable to keep up the calls. He had paid between L3O and L4O in calls, but was unable to meetT a further demand, and a judgment summons was taken out against him. It'was twelve years ago'that his wife got the money the furniture was bought with. ’

His Honor said it was not suggested that bankrupt was without means when he took up these shares, and'there did not seem tb be anything against him in regard'to 1 the furniture'. He (His Honor) did not sde any reason for suspending the order of discharged Did the Assignee know of any 7 The Assignee Said that he did not. Jsank-

rapt had given a straightforward statement of his affairs, Order granted. HE WILLIAM DONNETI SCTHERLAND, Motion for order approving deed of composition. Mr Sinclair, who appeared in support of the motion, said that he had filed an affidavit showing that notice had been given to all the creditors. Order granted. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (BeforeE. fl. Carew, Esq., R.M.) W. P. Wilkinson v, Marion Proudfoot,— In this previously-heard case His Worship now gave judgment as follows: “This action is for damages for an alleged trespass on land rented by the plaintiff from defendant. The defendant entered upon the land and caused a new lock to be fixed upon the front door of the house, the windows to be nailed up, and a new lock fixed to a gate leading on to the premises, thus excluding the plaintiff. The defendant objects to the jurisdiction of the Court. The teal question between the parties is whether plaintiff’s term and interest had come to an end, or whether plaintiff had the right of possession. This is the real dispute between the parties, and therefore it matters not how far there may be evidence to support the defendant. t -fl * 8 one of title, which cannot be tried here. No jurisdiction. Case struck out, with costa (10s 6d). Butterworth Bros. v. Robertson and a i“J’ 14s 7d, for boots supplied to Lightband and Co. (Christchurch). In this previously-heard case HU Worship n °w v ? i ud S ment i nonsuiting plaintiffs, to ii P, J? W S BneeT - C * Bre otana.-Claim, hi lls 4d, for meat supplied.—Judgment was given for plaintiff for L2 Is 4d, with costs.

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/ESD18890930.2.18

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS-TODAY., Evening Star, Issue 8025, 30 September 1889

Word Count
725

THE COURTS-TODAY. Evening Star, Issue 8025, 30 September 1889

Working