SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 9120, 4 June 1890, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

TUESDAY, JtTNB 3. IN BANKSOPTCT. (Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) • BE ALEXANDER BITCHIE. The bankrupt applied in person for an order of discharge. His Honor said that he noticed that the debtor had .£350 of debts and only £3 of assets. How was that ? The debtor said that he had been ill for six months, during which- his wife had carried on the business. Hia largest creditor had a bill of sale over his said that that, to some extent, explained the absence of assets. The discharge would be granted. BE EBBNBZEB WATSON DAVIDSON. Mr Martin applied for the discharge of the bankrupt, who stated that he had been in business as a seedsman, in partnership with a man named Westmacott, who found the capital. Westmacott withdrew the capital, and left bankrupt without funds. His creditors did not oppose his discharge. Carried on business for a short time in the hope of getting another partner. Matters were so arranged that Westmacott could take hia money out of the business whether bankrupt was willing or not. His Honor said that though he was not quits satisfied that the interests of the creditors had been duly considered, yet, as the debtor had been bankrupt since 1887, he would grant the order of discharge. BE - CHARLES WATSON MABTIN. Mr Bussell applied for an order of discharge for the bankrupt, who, he stated, was residing, in' Sydney. The bankrupt had been an auctioneer and land agent. No creditor had appeared to oppose the application, and the only objection of tho Official Assignee was that no proper books had been kept. -Hia Honor pointed out that tho debtor hkd paid only a penny, in the £, and, he thought, ought to be examined to show how he came to have no assets. Mr Bussell said that the bankrupt had invested in mortgaged property, which bad depreciated in value, and caused the bankruptcy. Only two creditors had proved, one of them being the solicitor who had put the bankrupt through tho Court. Notice of the present proceedings had been given to both, and neither of them appeared to oppose. His Honor, after looking over the documents in the case, said that as only two creditors had proved, that four years had elapsed since the bankruptcy, and that a satisfactory explanation had been given of the bankruptcy and of the bankrupt’s absence, he would grant the discharge, though he considered' that a bankrupt should, save under exceptional circumstances, he present when his discharge was applied for. BE CL ABA GOODMAN. Mr Bruges applied for the bankrupt's of der of discharge. ' Thera was no opposition, and his Honor granted the order. BE JOSIAH WHITE. ' Mr Kippenberger appeared for the Official Assignee, and Mr Slater for the bankrupt’s wife. Mr Kippenberger applied for an order declaring void as against the Official Assignee an agreement made in October, 1889, between the bankrupt and his wife in respect of a loan of £l4O alleged to be made by the latter to the former; and for an order that the sum of £2OO paid by the bankrupt to his wife be handed over to the Assignee. He submitted that, under Section 5 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1884, which prescribed that any money or other property advanced or entrusted by a wife to her husband for the purpose of trade' or business, should be considered as part of the assets of hia estate in the event of bankruptcy, Mrs White could only claim to have the loan in question repaid after the claims of the other creditors had been satisfied. Mr Slater; as solicitor for Mrs Wiite, had expressed his willingness to hard over to the Official Assignee the sum of £3O, being the difference between the wpomt of the loan and the amount paid

Kipponbcrger) submitted that the creditors were eatitled to claim the whole sum of .£2OO,

A quantity of evidence detailing the transactions of the bankrupt was given.

Mrs White gave evidence to the effect that her former husband (Richardson) had left her about £2OO. She married White at Christmas, 1887, and came to Christchurch shortly after. Found the money for the purchase of a business from Mr Lavery. Provided all the money, and White was to pay it back. Lent him other moneys from time to time. White entered into an agreement to purchase from Mr Gee a property in the Sfcanmore road, of which she found £3O of the purchase money. White subsequently made the property over to her as security for £l4O she had lent. Afterwards, when the property was sold. White gave her £2OO, of which she had paid £6O to the Official Assignee, and claimed £l4O herself. In cross-examination witness appeared confused between money she had had in the Bank of New Zealand, the Savings Bank, and at Homo. She had now only £2O or £25 left.

• His Honor said it appeared to lam that Mrs White had received £2OO, which, on the face of things, belonged to her husband. Mr Slater submitted that £l4O bad been advanced to the husband by Mrs White. His Honor did nob believe Mrs White’s statement. He believed that Mrs White had had £135, which she lent to her husband, but the greater part had been paid back, and the transaction just before the bankruptcy was a swindle. Mr Slater submitted that under the Married Women’s Property Act Mrs White had an equal claim with other creditors. Sections 3 and 14, he took it, established this. He contended there had been no fraudulent preference, as the payment to Mrs White by her husband was more than three months before his bankruptcy. His Honor did not think any creditor could enforce an unregistered agreement, such as Mrs White claimed under, as against the Official Assignee. The Married Women’s Property Act was passed to protect women, but it opened the door to fraud, if not carefully watched. When a wife came forward as a creditor and mortgagee of her husband shortly before his bankruptcy, the case required most careful scrutiny. The most Mrs White could claim would bo a charge to the extent of £SO, which was the only money she had paid on the property which was transferred to her as security. Even as to this ho had to be satisfied there was a bond fide debt between the parties, and of this he had only the evidence of the husband and wife, neither of whom he believed. As he did not believe Mrs White’s story he could not find there was a debt due her by her husband, and made the order as prayed. Costs allowed £lO 10s. IN DIYOECE. TOMPKINS V. TOMPKINS. In this case Annie Tompkins was the petitioner and Charles William Tompkins the respondent. Mr Fisher appeared for petitioner. There was no appearance of respondent. The grounds of the application for a rule nisi were adultery, cruelty, and desertion. The facts as stated for the petitioner, were that the parties were married oh October 12,1876, at the Wesleyan Church, Durham street. They were both very young, being about eighteen. They lived together in Cashel street for about a year, when Mrs Tompkins, being unwell, went into the country on a visit, and upon her return her husband admitted an improper intimacy with another woman. Subsequently his wife forgave him, and they were reconciled, but in 1879 the domestic peace was again disturbed. Respondent was found by his wife in company with another woman, and upon being remonstrated with, be struck bis wife. A partial reconciliation was again effected, but afterwards respondent failed to support bis wife, and was ordered by the E.M. Court to contribute £1 5s a week to her support. He failed to do this, and was imprisoned. After he came out of gaol he went away, and she had not since heard from him- It had lately been ascertained he was in New South Wales, where the citation was served.

Alfred Wyatt, Annie Tompkins, Francis Cullen and Frederick Clark gave evidence in support of the application. His Honor made a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months. The Court then adjourned. [Pbb Pbbss Association.] DUNEDIN, June 3. Alexander Bogers, for embezzling money belonging to the Ellis Steam Company, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. In the case of Thomas Barrett, charged with attempted murder, the jury returned at ten o’clock, and found the accused “ Guilty.” He was sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude. The case was one in which an old man named Woods, who had previously been on bad terms with Barrett, was assaulted on his way home on a dark night and beaten very severely. The horse and dray were backed over a precipiece, falling twenty feet, the horse having his back broken. Wood managed to crawl to a schoolhouse, where he remained all night, and for some time his life was despaired of. Barrett left the Court protesting his innocence. Emma Parnell was found “Guilty” of larceny, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.