SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1401, 14 May 1868, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

(Beiore His Honor Mr. Justice Moore.) I'.uett v. fciMiTH. —TheplaintifF, Burtt, sequestrator in the bankrupt eata.le of .Harris and Laurie, sued S. H. Smith for goods sold and delivered to defendant by the above - named bankrupts, tho declaration being the usual one for goods Bold and delivored. In reply the plea was a Bet-off of a promissory note for £182, which was dishonoured previous to the bankruptcy. This case wehavepreviouslyreported,andatthat time it will be remembered that plaintiff demurred to this, plea on the ground that the P.BT. could not be a Bet-off against plaintiffs claim. The Court over-, ruled the demurrer,,.but gave leave to plaintiff; to reply. . The reply is as follows: That the goods in the declaration mentioned wore sold by the bankrupts, Harris and Laurie, to the defendant on condition that defendant would pay cash for the same on demand, and that the promissory note in the plea set forth should not be sjs't off ngaiiuit the plaintiff's claim in respect to the said goods, and that payment for-the said goods had been demanded, but that the defendant had refused to pay for the same, and for a second application that the defendant on or about the 27th day of November,, 1867, elected and agreed to prove .against the estate of tho said bankrupt for.thia promissory : . note, instead of setling off,she, amount ,due,, in respect of the.sa,id P.N. .agaipst the plaintiff's, claim, and that the defendant proved agaiiist the estate .of the said bankrupt for the eaid promissory note, and voted in choice, .'of 1 a trustee of the said estate. 1 To both' replications the defendant demurred, the ground's being a? to the first replication, first, That it amounts to a departure, the declaration being.simply, for'go'ods sold and delivered,- whilst the replication sets up'a different causa-of action upon a special condition ; second,Thatthe,sale and delivery having, been effected no such condition: aa that above inon-i tioned could prevail; »ind as to. thp.Becond part of the, replication the facts brought .forward did not operate, as.a,bar to, the, actipu.—Mr. Gillies appearedi to support tho demurrer, and, Mr. "Whitaber in suppjort, of the replication. .After hearing counsel on both Bides in support of the demurrer and the replication thereto, His flonor.ieierved judgment until .to-day, whence judgment during, the sittings,, in bankruptcy. '" '. .. "'. ! " ' foLBMANV.'CotEkAN.—Thic was b 'suit .brougat by William Coleman against Miss Mary Coleman, exeoutrix of the late John Coleman, Mr. Wynn

appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Brookfield, instructed j by Messrs. Hill and Son, for defendant. The plaintiff, who is one of the rosiiuary Ugateeß under the will of the testator, haviD# lately attained the age of 21 years and become entitled to his share, claimed to have the estate duly administered. The Court having heard Mr. Wynn on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Brookfield having consented on behalf of the defendant, decreed that the estate should be duly administered for tho benefit of all parties interested therein. Gilberd v. I/LOID And AnOlHeb. —Mr. Wynn for plaintiff, and Mr. Brookfield, instructed by Messrs. Hill and Son, for defendants.—Mr9. Mary Gilberd, the plaintiff, is entitled under the will of James Gilberd, her late husband. The defendants, Archdeacon jjloyd and Henry Gilberd, are the executors of. the testator. The plaintiff claimei the usual decree. The Court, after hearing counshl, and by consent, decreed that the estate should be duly ad« ministered for the benefit of all parties interested j therein.