SUPREXE COURT-IN CHAMBERS.
(Before His Honor Mr Justioe Williams.) . Bank of New Zealand, arid Others y, Guthrie and others.—Summons- that the receiver proceed to deal with the sum of £20,000 referred to in the order of September 29, 1897, and to divide fcheraaid sum jn the manner authorised by the order. Mr Sim appeared for the debenture, holders other than the Bank of New Zsaland ; Mr Woodhouse appeared for Mr W. R.Cook, as official liquidator of the allied companies ; and Mr Hosking appeared for the Bank of New Zealand. • By an order made by Mr Justioe Denniston on September 29, 1897, the official reqeiver (Mr W. R. Cook) was authorised to pay to certain of the debenture-holders their proportion of the sum of £20,000. That payment had not been made, and the .object of the present summons was to compel the reqeiver to comply with the terms' of the order.
Mr,Woodhouse asked that the summons should stand over for a few days. Mr Cook was in Wellington, but was probably leaving forDanedin on Wednesday, and .would be here in time for a Chambers sitting on Friday. 6
Mr Sim: Have you any instructions from Mr Cook to apply for an adjournment ? Mr Woodhouse: No. Mr Sim : Have you any instructions from the Bank to ask for an adjournment ? Mr Woodhouse: No.
Mr Sim : Then I hold that my learned friend, having recsived no instructions from his client, has no right to ask for an adjournment. His Honor pointed out that Mr Woodhouse represented Mr Cook, and had been served with the summons.
Mr Sim said that the summons could not affect the allied companies in any way. The money was in the bank, and there was no reason why the debenture-holders should not get their share. It was very unfortunate that the Bank of New. Zealand was ever appointed the bankers in this matter. The rights of the debenture-holders had been practically settled with the consent of the Bank.
Mr Hosking: We did not actually consent ; we raised no objection. Mr Sim: The order does not profess to bo made by consent, but I understand that Mr Justice Denniston would not have made the order if there were any o^jeations. Mr Hosking: We made no objection. Mr Sim: There is no reason why the money should not be divided. Why should the Bank be allowed to retain this monev?
His Honor: What is your position with Mr Cook, Mr Woodhouse ? Mr Woodhouse : I understand that some notice of appeal has been served with regard to these proceedings. Mr Sim: We have heard of Borne notice of appeal, but it has never been served on us.
Mr Hosking: It was not prepared here, but I believe it was served on Mr Cook in Wellington. His Honor: Notice of appeal ? Mr Hosking: Yes; of this order of the 19th September and of your judgment in the action which you gave on August 10. His Honor: Who appealed ? Mr Hosking : The Bank appeals. Mr Sim : If notice of appeal were given, it has long sinced lapsed. If Mr Cook wants to act fairly to the debenture-holders he has no grounds for not paying this money. Mr Hosking: I was only served with notice of these proceedings on Saturday, and have no instructions in the matter, and would like to have some instructions. His Honor : I do not think I can make an order, Mr Sim. This order simply gives Mr Cook liberty to deal with the money. He ought to have an opportunity of being heard. Ho may have something to say why he should not pay, and his counsel very naturally wants to confer with him before consenting to tho order.
Mr Sim: The only reason givon for not paying was that the Bank of New Zealand had served him with a notice of appeal. It was ultimately agreed that the summons should stand over till Friday, when some special time would be fixed* for its hearing.
SUPREME COURT-IN BANKRUPTCY (Before Hia Honor Mr Jußtioa Williams.) Me Eustace Henry Fulton. Application for ; order of discharge. Mr Sim appeared in support, and Mr Solomon for the Land and Lian Company to oppose the application. Mr Solomon, in stating the grounds on which he opposed the application, said that bankrupt bad been in partnership with Mr Stanley, but in consequence of the bankruptcy of the Messra Redferu; Alexander, and Co., of Edinburgh, that firm had oome to grief. Sinoe the dissolution of the partnership of Messrs Fulton and Stanley Mr Fulton had been in business for himself, and appeared to have been assisted by the Land .and Loan Company, of which his fathor was managing director. Ho now owed that oompany £1,400 or £1,500. Praotioally he had no assets whatever, and had bsen hopelessly insolvent all the time. One of the chief objections to the order of discharge being granted wai that Fulton, who was a young man with a wife and two children, had been living at the rate of £4OO a year. Another particular item to which the Assignee called attention, and to which his (counsel's) attention had also been directed, was an item of commission. According to his instructions a sum of money held by bankrupt was owed to Mr Francis Fulton, but instead of givin<» him credit for it bankrupt had taken credft for it himself. Another matter which required explanation was perhaps more serious. Bankrupt had had the agency for the sale of Symington's essence of coffee. That was a valuable asset, and would be at the present time worth £250. On the eve of his bankruptcy the agency was transferred to Mr James Brown. It was suggested that that was an unfair thing to do, and had the effect of taking out of the hands of the creditors an asset which was of considerable value to them. He would like to put a few questions to bankrupt. Bankrupt, being sworn, in reply to Mr Solomon said that previously to his bankruptcy he was regarded as the agent for Symington's coffee essence. Mr Brown was now the agent. He had never been advertised as the agent, but witness understood that that was his position. He (witness) ceased to be the agent upon becoming bankrupt. When witness got through his bankruptcy difficulties he hoped that, subject to Messrs Symington's consent, Mr Brown would hand back the agency again. It was worth about £IOO a year, and formed the backbone of his business. He did not ask Messrs Symington to transfer the agency to Mr Brown ; they did that of their own accord. Since leaving Mr Stanley the profits of witness's business had amounted to from £250 to £3OO a tear. The £22 19s 5d commission referred to by the Assignee was a rebate on wool carried for his father. It was not his father's money, because he was endeavoring to get the same amount out of Stanley and Co., which he intended handing over to his father. He looked upon it as commission. He did not tell his father he was going to take it, but passed it to his own account. He got a rebate of one-eighth of a penny on all wool belonging to his father which was carried. He was practioally putting one company against another. By Mr Sim: Previous to his bankruptcy he had had a lot of sickness in his family. His bankruptcy was immediately attributable to the Land and Loan Company putting a bailiff into his house. Mr Sim : What have you done to incur your father's displeasure. Mr Solomon objected to the question, as it was importing personal matter not connected with the case. Mr Sim said that there waß no denying that the opposition to the discharge was largely inspired by personal fueling. His Honor: It does not look like commercial opposition. Mr Sim (to witness): Yon incurred your father's displeasure on matters entirely outside your own business. Witness: Oh, yes, quite apart from my business operations.
.-Mr Sim submitted that no reason had been sustained why the order should not be granted. His Honor: I have read the report of the Offisial Assignee, and I see no special reason to suspend. the order. 'The order- of discharge was accordingly
His Honor fixed February 14,1898; for the next sitting of the Bankruptcy Court.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 10472, 16 November 1897