SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9510, 4 September 1891, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

[Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Sept. 8; In the case of Ketiki Hapita, a Maori, charged with perjury, the Jury, afterbeing locked up all night, disagreed, and a now trial is ordered for Thursday. Walter Tucker, charged with false pretences at Masterton, and Bobert Shilling, charged with forging the name of Alex.’ .Grant, sheep farmer, of Hawke's Bay, to a cheque for £l6, were acquitted. , DUNEDIN, Sept 8. In the Supreme Court, in Admiralty jurisdiction, to-day, Mr Justice Williams gave judgment as asked for in the case of Bernard v. ship Menschikoff, an action to recover master's wages and disbursements. There was no appearance of the owner, and the crew had obtained judgment in the lower Court. The vessel got into : difficulties by a heavy sea striking her and slanting the deck load and smashing the bulwarks, causing the master to pat into Lyttelton for repairs, which had not been paid for. An order for sale was made. y Sitting in bankruptcy, Mr Justice Williams heard a summous to the landlqzdin the bankruptcy ,o£ D. M'Leod, to show cause why his claim to rank preferentially should not be reduced to six months’ rent instead of twelve. The question at issue was whether the landlord’s bailiff had taken possession before the bankrupt filed. In giving judgment, his Honor said he was at first inclined to think that the filing of the bankruptcy petition must be considered as a judicial act, and that it would have relation, on the authority of Collins and Edwards v. the Queen, to the first instant of the day, and therefore would take priority of any distress that might be levied in the course of the day. On consideration, looking at the terms of our Bankruptcy Act and its amendments, ha did not think that was a right conclusion j but he was satisfied that the Court in the present case could take notice of the fractions of a day, and ought to inquire which act took place first—the filing of the, petition or Layness* distress. On the merits, he thought there could be no doubt that the balance of evidence was in favour of tho view that the landlord’s bailiff got a start by some three or four minutes, and that the bailiff was in before the petition was filed. The summons would he dismissed with costs (five witness’ expenses and disbursements.