SUPREME COURT-IN BANK RUPTCY.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5677, 1 May 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT-IN BANK RUPTCY.

Friday, Apkh 30. (Before Mr P. A. F. Birch, Registrar.) BE NEWTOX, IRVINE, AND CO. Mr Oarlile applied for an order declaring the complete execution of a deed of i assignment by Newton, Irvine, and Co. — Granted. UE NEWTON AND JOHNSON. Mr Carlile applied for a similar order in the matter of Newton and Johnson, of Waipawa. — Granted. RE J. J. BLACKBXTKN. Mr Lascelles applied for an order of discharge in the bankruptcy of J. J. Blackburn. — Granted. B.E J. L. AI/LANACH. Mr Cornford applied for an order of discharge in the bankruptcy of John Lees Allanach. Mr Lascelles appeared to oppose the application on behalf of Messrs Brighouse, Williamson, and Lascelles. He stated that they opposed the application on the grounds that the statement of the bankrupt's assets and liabilities was not true. The largest creditor was not mentioned. A further objection was that the proceedings had been abandoned. Mr Cornford said Mr Lascelles had himself filed the statement in the first instance. Mr Lmscelles had been eugaged as solicitor in the matter, and had re-

ceived fees Mr Lascelles : No. Mr Cornford said he did not like to contradict Mr Laacelles, but he was instructed that such was the case. He would object to Mr Lascelles giving 1 evidence in the case. In 1874 Judge Johnston, in a somewhat similar way, refused to take Mr Lascelles' evidence. Mr Lascelles : It is a downright falsehood ; I gave evidence at the time, and can produce it. Mr Cornford continued that with regard to the omission of Williamson's debt the debtor was in Mr Lascelles' hauds at the time. It was not the intention of the debtor to get his discharge in regard to that particular debt, as it was borrowed money, and he intended paying that debt in full. He did not know that there was any offence on his part in omitting it. The bankruptcy proceedings had never been abandoned. The debtor went to Mr Lascelles to have the proceedings gone ou with, and even offered fees, but Mr Lascelles would not go on with the debtor's case.

John Allanach, the bankrupt, was then examined. He deposed that he was formerly an hotelkceper residing at Te Aute, but was now a laborer at West Clive. The list of liabilities and assets produced was the one he swore to in 1579. 1 The name of Alexander Williamson was omitted from it. That creditor had lent money to witness out of friendship, and he intended repiiying it in full, so he did not want to get a discharge from that debt. With the exception of that item no other creditor was omitted from the list, to the best of his knowledge and belief. Ho put down on the statement a list of all the property he had at the time of his declaration. The cause of his filing was on account of being pressed by his creditors, and also on account of Mr Manoy having a bill of sale over the property. A valuation of the estate showed £220 in his favor. With regard to the payment of fees to Mr Lascelles, witness said he did not pay him any cash, but that Charles Leach of To Auto agreed to send down two trucks of firewood to Mr Lascelles. On being further questioned, the witness said he did not know if tho wood had been delivered. He offered Mr Lascelles £10 if he would go on with the proceedings iv February last. Mr Lascelles said he would try and get Williamson's claim settled first. Ho sent in a demand to witness for Williamson's claim. Witness never told Mr Lascolloa to discontinue proceedings ; or that he

T^f*l' Tir T T ~'''lilw I iMjiiminri iimiin — —^— ■— . —^ did not want to proceed any further with tae bankruptcy. % Mr Lascellea : Witness wettt to, Mp Lasoelles, .offlce ; on account of a. ietter he received from him coiicamihg Willidmsdn'l business. Ho had not been in his office for six -months before that. He wotl'd not swear that ho was in the office from May, 1879, till February, 1880 1 S tiould not say if ho mentioned Williamson'^ deb.t to Mr Lascclles at the time. of filing The only dclib on the. Hat that lie incurred after Mr Manby had taken posaession of the place under the bill of sale v/as that of John Ashton's. Mr Lascelles : Why was it that on yourfiratlist you omitted Mr Manoy's claims i and placed it on the second one 1 Mr Oornford objected ■to the question, as he. considered it touched upon tho relai tidna between attorney and client. Mr Lasoejle3 . had been, advising- the deb.tjcrt 1 ; and he should object to any question" which Mated to matters happening while' Mr Lascelles was the debtor's solicitor. With regard to the paper which Mr lias-' ' celles had in his hand, and on which he was 'questioning tho debtor, it bdre ~no evidence of haying been filed f nor was it ' stamped; , ' - : ■ '- The bankrupt in continuation said thafc^ . Mr Manoy claimed a cow by virtue of the T r bill of sale. Witness disputed the claim, and retained possession of the' cow, which he sold for £6 to Charles Leach ' some time before he (witness) filed. Witness heard that Manoy threatened to proceed against hid mother for taking away part- : of the property included in the bill of sale.\'i His horse and trap were taken possession of by Mr Manoy. From May, 1879,. to February, 1880, he had not addressed any written or verbal communication to Mr Lascelles respecting his bankruptcy. He had seen him on several occasions during that period, but did not speak to him on the Subject, but would have done so had he had any money. He thought Mr Lascelles was waiting till he got enough money to go on with the' proceeds ings. , He did not. delay because he .had:' been-told that he could hot pass. At the" ', time he received the letter referring to Williamson's money he went to Mr Lascelles' office; and Mr Lascelles asked if: he , could pay one-half of the money he owed ■ Williamson— £2s— £10 down, and £15 in r six months. He said he thought he could. He never showed Mr Lascelles any money ■ that day. He would not swear that Mr Lascelles told him in February that it was ! no use going on as the bankruptcy pro- ' cecding's had lapsed. : By Mr Oornford : Witness never received any notice from Mr Lascelles that he had thrown up the proceedings. Mr v Lascelles said in February that Williamson's claim should be settled first, and the", other proceedings could be gone on with afterwards. ' Mr Lascelles and Mr Cornford addressed the Registrar, who. reserved his decision till May 14. . /. RE JAMES ROBERT SCOTT. In the matter of the bankruptcy of James Robert Scott, Mr Lascelles applied: for an adjournment, which was granted.