LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6998, 22 April 1884, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

BANKRUPTCY.

Be Lionel PhilupsV—- An adjourned meeting was held yesterday, to consider whether a composition of 5a in the £ should be accepted. Mr. Cave for the Official Assignee ; Mr. Cooper for Melbourne creditors ; Mr. U." Buddie for other creditors ; Mr. G. N. Brassey for the debtor. The total indebtedness was set down at£2lo2. Upon this 5a in the £ represents a sum ot £520. The assets were set down at £43310e sd, stock, £300 book debts, £40 16s Id surplus security: total, £774 63 6d. The proposed dividend would leave a margin of £254 6s 6d.—The Official Assignee said the meeting on Saturday reoresented £1183 .163 9d. There was an addition of £549 lSe 6d at the present meeting—making £1737 ISs 6d.—Mr. Kees George said he , adhered to- his opinion thatthU case wasone which reqniredinvestigation.—The Official .Assignee : There were at the laet meeting for eon fir ming resolution credi-. tors representing £109S 17s 9d ; and against, £636 0s 9d. The total debts being £2102 153 10d, it wonld require £1577 Iβ lOdto represent • -three-fourths in value. — Mr. Woollams. moved, and -Mr. E. Lewis seconded, that: the resolution passed at the first meeting be confirmed.—This led to a very lengthened discussion as to reading of the section of the Act (61) relating to the' mode of voting, viz., whether the majority in number representing three-fourths in value should be taken upon the entire body of the creditors, or whether the section restricted the vote to those present personally or by proxy at the meeting. Mr. Cooper contended that the vote was to be taken only of' those creditors, present or by proxy.—Considerable time was occupied in the production of proofs of debt by those personally.present ou their .own behalf and on tehalf" of proxies. It was fo«nd that the creditors entitled to vote represented £1285.—Mr.' Cooper said that under those circumstances the - - resolution to accept the 5s in"-' the' £ could not be passed. One-fonrth'of £1288 was £322.— Mr. G; N. -Brassey said he had received proof of debt from the Crown Brewery at Christchurch for £119, and one from Mr. Cooper of Wellington for £67 3j, bat these two proofs were ruled to bo informal by the Official Assignee, on' the gronnd that the forme of proof and proxy .were .those under the repealed Act. This would have given the bankrupt a clear majority.- He could not understand Mr. George's opposition, unless it was that he wanted to be trustee. —Mr. Cooper said the result of the voting showed in favour of the resolution £959, bnt. the three-fourths of £12SS was £966. The resolution to accept the 5s in the £ was therefore lost.—The effect of this decision will probably be to throw the estate into bankruptcy. ' . : >.

Re George Fosteb.— -A meeting of creditors in this estate wae held yesterday before the Official Assignee. The liabilities were 356799 ; assets, £4700. The • secured debts were set down at £1278, and estimated value of securities £2000. They consisted of leased premises off Grey-street, machinery, • &c, valued at £1800, and freehold at Arch Bill valued at £200. There was a large attendance of creditors. The debtor was described as a boot and shoe manufacturer off Greystreet. The principal discussion related to the ways and means of realising the estate. —On the motion of Mr. Barton Ireland (Ireland Brothers) it wae agreed that the stock of boots, shoes, leather, grindery, &c, exclusive of machinery and plant, be sold by auction.—On the motion of- Mr. Lewis (Austin and Lewis) it was agreed that tenders for machinery, plant, buildinge, &c, (together or separate) be advertised pending tbe arrival of Southern and Melbourne creditors. The next meeting of creditors to be held on the sth of May next. It was agreed to allow the bankrupt £40 worth of furniture.

POLICE COURT.— Monday. [Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.]

Dbunkenness.—One man was punished for a firnt offence, a woman for a second offence, and Joseph .Robinson, for. being a habitual drunkard, was sentenced to fourteen daye' imprisonment. '

Threatening Language and Assatjms. —Family Jabs.—Samuel Jonea wae charged with nsing threatening language to William Nioklee. William Nickles was chargedLwith assaulting Jones, and also with assaulting hie wife Elizabeth Ann Nioklos. Mr. Jackeon appeared for Jones and Mrs. Niekles ; and Mr. Blades for William Nickles. It was agreed to take the two first cases together, Mr. Blades objecting to have'the three heard together. It appeared that the trouble arose out of jealousy. Nickles was, it appeared, working at Mahurangr, and had been absent for some time, and Jones was a lodger in the house of the wife. Nickles tried to induce hia wife to go with him- to Mahnrangi, and sent away his child. A row ensued between the husband and wife, and Jones interfered, and assaulted Nickles, who struck' back in soli defence. These facts were deposed to by Nickles, who further said that his wife not only refused to go with him, but refused to live with him 1 . On Thursday last he sent his child away, and when he came back to the house hia wife asked where the child was. He told her, and Jones said, " You. b—, you have taken away the ohild," and caught him by the throat, and struck him, and witness struck back in self defence. Witness ordered Jones out of the houee, bat he refused to go, and witness laid an information against Jones, and had him arrested. He denied having thrown Jones down. Crossexamined : He knew Jones for two years, and they had lived together till four months ago, when witness went away. He had written to Jones and his wife in friendly terms. Hβ returned from Mahnrangi on the 11th, and after a tew words with: his wife returned on the 12th to Mahnrangi. Witness admitted taking up an axe, and told Jones if he came to him he would cut him down; but Jones 'took up a shovel, and threatened to cut his throat with it, and it was then that witness went into the garden and took np the axe, for Jones followed: him as far as the verandah. Mr, Jackson pointed out that the complaint, against Jonea was only for threatening language,' and ' that it was bad, as it disclosed two offences, bnt His Worship pointed out that this complaint was for tho purpose of sureties of the peace, and the complaint on the face of it wae good. Jones then gave his version of the affair. He was an engineer and millwright, and lived in Nickles' honse. He was in the house when Nickles came in, and sat on the stairs, and told his wife he had sent tho child to Mahnrangi. 7 She screamed, and ssid, " You thief, you have stolen my child. You will break my heart." He said, "You b ; I'll break your heart," and struck her on the face and breast, c- Witness went and pushed him away, upon which Nickles struck him, knocked him down, knelt on him, and threatened him. . Nickles went outside, took up the axe, and said, " 3fou b—, I'll do yon both." Witness had the-spade as hie ehield, and told him to be quiet. They had always been on the best.of terms, and when he was going to Mahnrangi he told witness he would hold Mm responsible for his wife and ohildren. Witness did not touch Mr. Niokles until he had struck hia wife, as he had too much respect for the man to permit him to injure his wife and child, seven weeks old. Cross-examined : Witness paid 5s a-week for his room, and provided his own food, which was sometimes cooked for him by Mrs. Nickles.' He did not take up the shovel until Nickles had taken the axe, and he swore positively he did not strike Nickles, or uso the language complained of. Mrs. Nickles, who had an infant in her arms, and appeared to be in a weak state, was accommodated with a chair, gave evidence, as to what took place. It corroborated that given by Jones. When her husband struck her, Jones stood up to take her part, and her husband struck ,him. They seized each other, and scuffled, and Jones was thrown on the sofa. After this Nickles'went out, picked np the axe, and said he would cue both of them down. Her evidence wa3 accepted as evidence in the case Nickles v. Nickles. Mr. Jackson said there_ was another complaint,' in which Mrs. Nicklea sought a protection order, but His Worship saia that was a separate' matter. _ The case against Jones was dismissed. Nickles was ordered to enter into his own recognizances of £20, and two sureties of £10 to keep the peace for three months, and the information of Jones againet Nickles was dismissed.