Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6052, 11 April 1881, Page 4

The temporary -transfer of Mr. Justice Gillies to the South is likely to be productive of some good with regard to the administration of the bankruptcy law. From the remarks of the Judge it appears hitherto to have been conducted in a very free and easy fashion, a favourable certificate from the creditors effecting the discharge of the debtor, and the Judge, it would appear, discharging no more important duty than that of registrar of this decree. But beyond the creditors there is the law, and Judge Gillies has very properly intimated that a report from the trustee is requisite, that the Bench may be able to form its conclusion as to whether a discharge should issue. If this were not to be so, the Judge would be merely a dummy, and if the trustee or the creditors neglected their duty the law might be violated with impunity. The office of the trustee has relation chiefly to the interests of the creditors, but the Legislature never intended that the creditors and trustee should decide the fate of a bankrupt, and it has never been the practice in this province. If this were to be the case, it "would open the door to collusion, and could defeat the policy of the statute, which is not only to protect individuals but maintain public morality. It is competent for a Judge to refuse to grant a bankrupt his discharge notwithstanding a favourable certificate from the creditors, but he is unable even to form an opinion in the absence of a report from the trustee. It is no reply to this to say that dissenting creditors can move the Court, because a burden of this sort should not be imposed upon them when the law provides that the Judge should decide the issue or refusal of a discharge on the facts. We saw recently the circumstance of Mr. Horace Lingard producing testimony in his bankruptcy, with respect to whi.ih there was imputation and strong proof of perjury having been committed. It was clear that this should have been disposed of, but the next step in the matter was that Mr. Lingard made a composition with the creditor who was pressing him; he was allowed to leave the colony, and the question of perjury or no perjury was left unsettled. There could not be a more grave suspicion than that of perjury, and yet no attempt was made to vindicate the law. This was a most discreditable state of affairs, and it would seem that whilst Judge Gillies is setting matters straight in the South with regard to the certificate, the law officers of the Government should consider the necessity of amending a law .under which allegations of perjury pass as a matter of no moment.