DISTRICT COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8122, 19 March 1887, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMAEIJ. Fbidat, March 18. judgment. Re J. A. Grade’s proof of l debt. The Clerk of the District Court delivered the written judgment of his Honor Judge Broad at noon to-day. The following is the full text of the judgment:— “ Grade, appellant. " Beswick, Deputy Assignee in the estate of Hall and Meason, respondent. •* Appeal from rejection of proof ef debt by the Deputy Assignee of the bankrupt estate of Hall and Meason.

" A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the proof of debt having been once admitted, the respondent had no power afterwards to reject it, but ought to have proceeded under Buie 83 to have it expunged. The first question then is—Was the proof ever admitted ? I have no difficulty in concluding that it was. It seemsthat the appellant lodged a proof of debt with the respondent on Oct. 26, 1886, that, with Mr Beswick’s knowledge, he attended and took part in a meeting of Creditors, on that day, that he was then elected supervisor of the estate, and acted in that capacity for nearly three months. No exception was taken to his proof until Jan. 25, 1887, when the Deputy Assignee says that in consequence of something that came to his knowledge during the hearing of a case in the Besident Magistrate’s Court, he resolved to reject the proof and gave notice accordingly. It is true there is no time limited, within which an assignee may reject a proof, but it seems to me clear that he has no power of rejection after he has once admitted it. The only course open to him then is to move the Court under Bale 33 to have it expunged. Certain technical objections were raised by the .learned counsel for the Deputy Assignee, the principal one being that the Magistrate before whom the affidavit was sworn merely put the letters “ J.P.” after his name, instead of describing himself as a Justice of the Peace for the Colony. This objection appears to be applicable to nearly every proof put in, and it is one which ought to have been apparent to the Deputy Assignee when he received and examined the proofs. There is, however, nothing in the objection, which will be found completely answered in ex parte Johnston in re Chapman L.E.. 26 Ch. Div. 338. This appeal might have been decided upon the preliminary objection only, but with a view of saving future litigation, I have thought it best to express my opinion upon the other point also.’’ This appeal is allowed with costs.