[Without a jury.] BANKRUPTCY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9126, 7 August 1888, Page 3

[Without a jury.]

BANKRUPTCY.

Colonial Bank of New Zealand v. Thomas Henderson.Claim for £438 9s 6d, due by the Mount Eden Sawmill Company. Mr. Cooper announced that by consent it was an mged that this case should stand over till next sitting. The adjournment was granted. Whitson and Co. (Louis Ehrenfried) v. Patrick Gleeson. —This was a claim for specific performance of a contract, and for a writ of injunction. Mr. Cotter and Mr. Thoo. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff's, and Mr. Button and Mr. Hesketh appeared for i lie defence. Mr. Cooper opened the case for the plaintiffs. The case was 0110 of those arising l out of the covenants of agreement between hotelkeepers and brewers, prohibiting licensees from purchasing from other sources supplies of beer, stout, &c., and cigars. Mr. Cooper said the plaintiff practically applied to the Court for relief in connection with an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant made in 1885. The statement of claim disclosed three causes of action, but the main cause of action was whether the occupant of the Albion Hotel was bound to buy beer, etc., from the plaintiff, or whether the Albion Hotel was tree. The plaintiff, a brewer carrying on business in Auckland under the name of Whitson and Sons, negotiated to purchase from Mr. Gleeson the right to supply all his hotels, including the Albion Hotel, for a period of 7 years, for which he paid £2000. A formal deed of agreement was prepared, but not signed. The Albion Hotel was leased by Mr. Yaxley, and in the covenant of his lease he was bound to purchase from the plaintiff, except wines and spirits, which wore to be purchased from Mr. Heather, but Mr. Heather had since retired from business. The defendant determined this lease, and obtained a license for himself. The defendant, however, denied that he determined the lease, but said that he entered into possession for the protection of his license and property, but he practically (Mr. Cooper contended) determined the lease, and was now proprietor and owner. He had since carried on business in the hotel, and had purchased and vended wines and spirits other than those purchased from Heather, and had purchased large quantities of beer, etc., other than from Whitson and Co., but he claimed that he was not bound by the covenant while he was in occupation himself, in personal occupancy, and that was the main question to be decided. The plaintiffs contention was that all the hotels mentioned were subject to the trade covenant, and that all occupants were bound by it. The defendant practically answered that the agreement spoke for itself, and that while he was in occupation personally lie was not bound by it. Plaintiff submitted that he was always ready and willing to supply beer, etc., to the Albion Hotel in accordance with the agreement, but the defendant denied that it was supplied at a fair market price. It did not appear that it was ever contemplated that Mr. Gleeson should himself become the oc cupier, and its provision was only that defendant's tenants were to be bound by the covenant. The contention was that while the defendant was licensee of the hotel he was bound by the agreement, and he contended that the whole tenor of the deed was that Mr. Ehrenfried was to obtain the full seven years' trade of each of the hotels mentioned. Mr. Hesketh replied to the contentions raised by Mr. Cooper, and contended that the provisions of the lease were that the defendant was only bound to obtain a condition from the lessees that they should get their beer from Ehrenfried, but did not apply in the case of the owner re-entering, and he contended that this view was not omitted in the stipulation, and its language was clear and unequivocal. His Honor said that what was contended was not that the language was equivocal but that this provision had been omitted. It did not provide for the extinguishment of the lease, and new lessee coming in, and that whoever was in possession was bound by the covenant. Mr. Hesketh said the covenant was not that Gleeson should take the beer, but that the lessees should take the beer, arid the lapse was contemplated that the lease might come to an end. Mr. Cooper submitted that the plaintiff's case had not been answered, and pointed out that the intention of the parties was that Gleeson, if in occupation of any hotel, was bound to buy Ehrenfried's beer. He was at the time the covenant was entered into in occupation of Gleeson Hotel, and bound himself to take Ehrenfried's beer, and he submitted that His Honor should rule that Mr. Gloeson while in occupation of one of these hotels was bound to buy from Ehrenfried. His Honor said the case was a rather complicated one, and he should like to take time to consider it. He should adjourn the case until Friday. The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock next morning.

POLICE COURT.—MONDAV. [Before Messrs. Collins and King, J.P.'s.J Drunkenness. — Three persons were punished" for this offence. Assault and Theft. — William Pollock was charged with assaulting George Murdock, by seizing him by the throat and throwing him down, on board the brigan-

tine Borealie on Sunday. George Murdock, steward of the brigantine Borealis, proved the case, saying that the accused had persisted in coming on board against witness's telling him he must not do so. The accused did come on board with a couple of sailors, and soon after doing so, in consequence of witness ordering him off, he caught witness by the throat and threw him down. The accused was further charged with stealing a ship's net, valued at 255, the property of Kenneth McKenzie. Mr. McKenzie, master of the ship, proved ownership of the net, and said he had not given it to witness. Constable Mackey, of the Water Police, testified that he received information of a man being abusive on the Borealis. He went there, and on the way found prisoner with a net in a bag. Witness asked what he had there. He denied that he had anything, but witness found the net and took him back .to the ship, where he saw accused assault Murdock. Two sailors named Dinnie and Paterson, also testified.—The Bench sentenced prisoner to two months' imprisonment for the assault, and four months' imprisonment for the theft, the sentences to run consecutively. Desertion. —James Bailey was charged with, on the 14th of March, at Auckland, J deserting from H.M.S. Nelson, contrary to section 19 of the Naval Discipline Act, 1880.—Inspector Broham stated that the Master of Arms of the Nelson was on his way to Auckland, on board the Manapouri, to take charge of the prisoner, and he would therefore ask for a remand for eight days.—This was granted. Straying Horse.—Albert Willows was charged with allowing his horse to stray in Gladstone Road on Jmy 27 and '28. The defendant explained that the schoolchildren let the horse loose ; he was not to blame at all— the children were. George Purdy deposed that the defendant's horse was continually straying, and so frequently had it done so that it had become a public nuisance. The Bench fined defendant ss, and costs lis, in one case, and ss, and costs 16s, in the other.

MEETING OF CREDITORS.

Edward Kelt y.—A meeting of the creditors in the estate of Edward Kelly, horsetrainer, was held yesterday afternoon at the office of the Official Assignee. Mr. Charles Bates was voted to the chair. Mr. Earl, on behalf of the debtor, stated that an offer of £250 had been mads for the whole of the estate, including horses and land. Mr. Lawson and he had gone into the question of the value of the assets, and considering it to be more than £250, had asked £300. The would-be purchaser had agreed to this amount, but required that all moneys due upon the racehorses should be paid by the estate. On this condition being insisted upon the bargain fell through. The horses, etc., had been sold by auction, and had realised about £108. In addition there was some land in which the debtor held a joint interest with two listers, and this was estimated to produce from £100 to £200 over the mortgage. He believed that several horse-owners owed considerable amounts to Kelly. It was agreed that the Official Assignee should be asked to investigate these claims in order that a true estimate: of the value of the estate might be arrived at, and the meeting adjourned.