LORD COLIN CAMPBELL'S BANKRUPTCY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9034, 21 April 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

LORD COLIN CAMPBELL'S BANKRUPTCY.

MISFORTUNE OR MISCONDUCT. In the Court of Appeal, on April 30, the appeal by Lord Colin Campbell against the decision of Mr. Registrar Gitfard, refusing to grant him a certificate removing the disqualifications or bankruptcy, was heard before the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Fry and Lopes. The certificate had been refused on the ground that the bankruptcy had been the outcome of misconduct and not misfortune. Mr. Finlay, for the appellant, submitted that the position which his client found himself in compelled him to go to the Divorce Court to protect his honour, and the fact that the action had gone against him was a misfortune. Some argument followed as to what constituted misfortune, in the course of which Mr. Finlay remarked that there was a Scotch proverb that a man succeeded better bygood luck than by good guidance. Lord Justice Fry asked whether good guidance meant coming south. Mr. Finlay explained that good guidance in Scotch meant good conduct. The Master of the Rolls pointed out that that was a very awkard proverb for the appellant's case, because it showed that a man succeeded by good luck rather than by good conduct. As it appeared to him (the Master of the Rolls), it was not misfortune for a man to bring a suit, the non-success of which he knows must land him in the Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Finlay asked whether it was misconduct for a husband to take the only course he could to protect his honour? The Master of the Rolls: What is misfortune ? Are we to assume that the jury giving a right verdict is a misfortune ? Mr. Finlay pointed out that his lordship had, during the progress of the divorce proceeding, paid for his wife's costs, alimony, &c, £1330 and in addition to that the costs had come to over £3000 more. With out calling on the other side, the Master of the Rolls was of opinion that the conduct of the bankrupt in taking the divorce proceedings, which were under his control from beginning to end, was such misconduct as brought him within the meaning of the 32nd section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. The bankruptcy must be the result of pure misfortune, and that could not be so in the present case. The verdict was the result of circumstances over which the bankrupt had full control, and, that being so, he (the Master of the Rolls) felt bound to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the bankrupt had brought himself within the first part of the section. Lords Justices Fry and Lopes were of the same opinion, Lord Justice Fry pointing out that the disqualifications in the section extended from the House of Lords to the select vestry.