LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6000, 9 February 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

supreme co^-r.c^::;; [Before Mr. Justice GlUies '■• ■ His Ho-nor sat this morning in charnW and disposed of the following v^^?* " Probate and Administration- • <j' applications for probate and lettered 1 ministration were granted. aiJ - Re John- Purcell, a W Thome applied to His order to hand over the money fouadin session of bankrupt.to the trustee leave to prosecute the bankrupt under i* Fraudulent Debtors Act. The groomTγ the application were--(l) That theTnl rupt, within four months of his banknS" concealed certain portions of pronertv h that within the same period he removed'., tain portions of his property. The l counsel read affidavits' the' fife* His Honor : I do not observe- that if~" T stated in the trustee's affidavit that he J,f ' reason to believe that the: bankrupt com nutted any specific act. The staZS general m its enaracter. There are facts men turned from which misconduct on the W of the bankrupt is inferred. Verbal reprJeh tations -would not be sufficient to justtft- •£' Court in making the order which is *fZ prayed. uv > Re James Berry Robixso.n a Baxtt BTOT.-This was an appeal from a decision of the trustee, in disallowing a proof of debt against the estate .for £150 by T rr Parker.—Mr. Theophilus Cooper for • the appellant, Mr. E. Hesketh for the trusW The facts deposed to by -affidavit in support of the appeal were the following -—1 nw on the 4th of March, ISSO, the appellant advanced to the bankrupt the sum of +'60 and that on the' 4th of August following he advanced a further sum of £90. The security for these advances was a promissory note made by Henry Cuthbertson, alleged by the appellant to be made in favour of the bankrupt for £16S, payable two months after date. Mr. Cooper said that tlie bill was given in contemplation of the completion of a sale of goods from Robinson to Cuthbertson, but that sale was upset and the estate -would not be damnified in any way by admitting this claim.—Mr. Hesketh said that, according to the appellant the bill was made on the 4th of August, "hut Cuthbertson swore positively that it was not made until the 10th. It was dated the 2nd of August, because the negotiations for the sale of goods commenced that day. But it was a fact that Parker had released Cuthbertson from the liability for a sum of £10. Both on the law and on the facts of the case the claimant ought to be precluded from proving against the estate.— His Honor gave his decision as follows :— When a trustee rejects a creditor's proof, and the creditor appeals against that decision, it appears to me that the creditor mast make very clear that he is a just and rightful creditor on the estate. In comparing these affidavits before me, I must give credit to the very direct and minute affidavit of Cuthbertson. I believe, therefore, that the note was not given on the 4th of August as sworn, but on the. 10th, the date on which it appeared to have been made, as sworn by Cuthbertson. Apart from the law of the case, looking to the fact that the apellant compromised his claim under this note for a sum of £10, that appears tome sufficient to throw an air of suspicion over the whole transaction. A creditor must do nothing to compromise his claim if he would have his proof of debt unquestioned. That note niust have been received from the. bankrupt upon the steamer when he was going away. In such circumstances I would not feel justified in reversing the decision of the trustee. Appeal dismissed accordingly. Black v. Gwy.nxeth.—This was an application for an order to set aside an appearance. Mr. E. Hesketh appeared for the plaintiff. The proceeding involved a somewhat unusual relation of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the several judicial districts of the colony. The defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff a certain parcel of land, and the plaintiff paid £50 deposit. The defendant refused to. complete the sale, and a writ was issued out of the Supreme Court at Auckland in an action to compel the defendant to specific performance of the contract. The defendant, however, resided in South Australia, and no appearance was entered to the action in Auckland. Endeavour was made to serve the defendant with the necessary notices, but service could not be proved, and still no appearance was entered by the defendant. It was shown, however, that a legal question was argued in Wellington upon demurrer, and the plaintiff did put in an appearance to the demurrer. The present application was to made to set aside that appearance.—His Honorsaidthe application appeared to involve a question of conflict of jurisdiction, which was to be regretted. Hecouldonlydecidetheapplication before him. It seemed to be.reasonable and proper that apjjearance should have been entered in the district from which the writ issued.—His Honor granted the application, and made the order as prayed, setting aside the appearance entered to the demurrer in Wellington any proceedings taken in the judicial districts of the colony other than that from which the writ issued. POLICE COURT.—Tuesday. [Before E. C. Barstow, Esq., K.3L] DRtrxKEXXEss.—Six persons were fined for this offence, in varying penalties. Assault.—This case was settled out of Court. Failing to Support. —William Chappell was charged with failing to support his wife. The money was paid into Court, and defendant released. -. PORT ALBERT PETTY SESSIONSThursday, February 3. [Before Messrs. J. Shepherd andL. Johnson, J.P.'s.] C. Judd v. McKay.—Defendant was a book agent for an American firm, who visited these districts in September last for orders for a "History of the World." Plaintiff signed an agreement to take a copy.. On. calling with this, a few days since, Mr. Judd was from home, but Mrs. Judd received it and paid the money for it (32s 6d), stating, however, in evidence, that McKay undertook, should her husband disapprove of the book, to refund the money. The summons was for the recovery of this.. Several witnesses were examined. The.general character of the work and its price were freely canvassed. It was not, however, proved that the work was other than as represented, though the price charged was considered more than its worth. McKay stated that he had some conversation with Mrs. Judd relating to the subject, but that the expressions he used could not imply a promise to return the money. The Court directed McKay to repay the money to Mr. Judd and pay costs, 7s 6d. E. Yates v. Shaxxox.—Plaintiff claimed some £30, damage to some unfenced land by sheep owned by defendant. This case was adjourned to the Resident Magistrates Court.—[Own Correspondent, February 3.]