CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1408, 3 June 1865, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

A BANKRUPT'S SOLICITOR.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LYTTELTON TIMES,

Si>t, —Your report of the argument of this rule, which took place last Friday, is so incorrect, that I take the liberty of writing a few words on the subject.

In the first place, it would appear by that report that the course taken by the creditors, and myself on their behalf, was wrong. Both the learned counsel against the rule seemed to rely upon the fact that the money had been paid to the trustee with my knowledge before I applied for the rule. The facts are these : on being threatened with a rule, Mr. Slater paid the trustee, on Wednesday, the 17th of May, the sum of two hundred and sixty pounds out of four hundred and twelve pounds ; I, therefore immediately prepared the necessary affidavits, and filed them with notice of motion on Friday, the 19th, at 11 o'clock, and gave Mr. Slater notice that I had done so ; he then paid the balance to the trustee, and also the £5 per cent, required to be paid on the gross amount'received in all estates to the fund in court. I was casually informed of this on the Monday following by Mr. Cowlishaw, who acted for the trustee; but I told them then, as I saiy in court, that it was not sufficient for me to withdraw the rule, as [the effect of my filing the papers, &c., was that Mr. Slater handed over the balance at once to the trustee, and, therefore, my clients, the creditors, were entitled to the costs of the application. Even if I had been served with formal notice; it would not have been sufficient, unless they had complied with the rest of the rule, viz., by paying the costs. Besides, the rule was to shew cause why the money should not be paid into Court; why Mr. Slater should not pay interest on the money held by him; and why the costs of the rule should not be paid; so that what was asked for by the rule had not been done. His Honor, on cause being shewn, ruled that the Court could not make Mr. Slater pay interest; and, although the trustee had shewn great laches in allowing Mr. Slater to hold the money for so long a time, to the detriment of the creditors, still, his Honor said he had not been guilty of such conduct as would induce the Court to remove him from the trust. Upon his Honor ruling this, I myself ashed the Court to discharge the rule, on payment of costs of the rule nisi, and I waived the question o£ costs for showing cause. His Honor thereupon discharged the rule, and directed Mr. Slater to pay the costs, because, as his Honor said, Mr. Slater caused the necessity for these proceedings being taken, by receiving the money improperly and holding it. In concluding his judgment, his Honor made the following remarks, which I noted down at the time, and I think they will convey a very different impression from that created by your report of what took place His Honor said : " That in consequence of what had been said by the Counsel for Mr. Slater and the trustee, as to the course taken by Mr. Williams in this case, he wished expressly to state that he considered the course taken by the creditors, and by Mr. Williams on their behalf, was a very proper one ; and sitting there as he did (his Honor said) as Judge, he should be always most happy to give any assistance the Court possibly could to put a stop to such proceedings as had been disclosed, and he hoped that the cases already brought before the Court would be a warning for the future, and that they would be the last that the Court would have to hear." I took a note of his Honor's wor Js, and I think it is unnecessary to comment upon them, as they sufficiently indicate what was the opinion held by the Court of the whole proceedings. I am, &c., H. WYNN WILLIAMS.