LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8630, 28 July 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—In Bakkbottcy. ' .' ■' . ' ■ ..' MONDAY.. ■' ';■' .X ... ■■; : [Before His Honor Sir. Justice Coaolly.] Preferential Claim—7£mpop.tant Ruling. —Rβ Frank Renshaw atad Charles Tweedale Kenshaw : This was a case stated by the Official Assignee for the opinion of the Judge as to whether claims by a servant for wages or damages in lieu of notice should be treated as preferential claims or whether they should be proved in the ordinary way. -The matter had been argued by Mr. Cave a'c a previous sitting of the Court, and His Honor now delivered judgment. His Honor said the question which he was called upon to decide had never, so far as they could ascertain, been raised except before Commissioners of Bankruptcy, of the cases quoted only one see/ined to be in point, that was a decision, fey, Commissioner Holroyd, in the o»iMi . t ftgainsb ; a newspaper, in which he sJkjwed a month's wages in lieu of notice, and upon this decision the claims of a number of others for a week's wages m lieu of notice were allowed. But the section of the English Act under which these orders were made was different from section 118 of the Act of 1883. The order made by Mr. Commissioner Holroyd was for payment in full, but that did not seem to him (His Honor) to be sound in law. The Act of 1883 did not allow the Court to assess the damages, and he was of opinion that under section 18 of the Act of 1884 any amount for damages for termination of hiring cannot be considered a preferential claim. It would be for the creditors to agree with the parties as to what amount should be allowed as damages, and if they could not agree they must come to this Court to direct that the damages should be, assessed by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the amount so assessed should be proved as ordinary, not preferential, debte. ' Okders op Discharge.—Mr. Johnston applied to have an order of dischargegranted to Peter Joseph Neherny. Mr. Oliphant appeared on behalf of the petitioning creditors of whom Mr. Smith is one. Mr. Johnston said that all the creditors except Mr. Smith were favourable to the debtor, and had passed resolutions twice unanimously requesting the Official Assignee to facilitate the bankrupt's discharge. Mr. Smith now withdrew all opposition. The petitioning creditors assigned their claim, to the debtor's wife, and she had paid their claim. Mr. Tole appeared for Mrs. Neherny to support the application. The' Official Assignee said the costs had been paid, and there were no wages claims. There being no opposition the order was granted. Mr. Cave appeared in support ofan order for discharge of Robert Henry. There was no opposition, and the order was granted. Mr. Cave also appeared in support of a motion for order of discharge of Charles James Holroyde and George Ernest Holroyde in their joint and separate estates. It was an old bankruptcy, and all preferential claims had' been paid. There was no opposition and the ordergranted. R.M. COURT.—Monday. [Before Dr. Giles, K.M.] O. R. younghusband (trading as C.F. James and Co.) v. Sottie and Co.— Claim, £30 12s Bd, as balance due on a transaction in Adelaide bark, the plaintiff alleging that he had obtained the bark on behalf of the defendants, and on their refusing to take it had sold it at their risk, the amount sued for being the difference between the amount) realised at the sale and, the price originally agreed upon. Mr. Hesketh for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter for the defendants. - All the evidence had j been taken at two previous sittings of the i Court, and His Worship now heard the , addresses of counsel, and , reserved judg*. ment. .■ .' \■," '• ■ ; - ■' ■ '.. POLICE COURT.— I [Before Messrs. H. M» Jervis and James Groom, J.P.'s.] • ', Drunkenness.—One man, a first offender, was fined 5s and costs, or in default 24 hours' hard labour. ~.■ Another first offender failed to appear, and his,bail, 20s, -was therefore estreated. ■■~,■■■ '- , v An Error Explained.— Robert ■Briggs was charged with having embezzled the sum of £19 18s from John Fisher, defendant then being in the employment of the said John Fisher. Mr. Cotter, who appeared for the prosecution, pointed out that on Saturday last the accused was sent with certain cheques to the bank by his employer. The accused received instructions to bank the cheques. * However, he did not return, and when he was eventually discovered he failed to explain what had become of the cheques. The man was in liquor at the time, and Mr. Fisher gave, him into custody. At this time the Bank was closed. When the Bank was again opened on the following day it was discovered that the money had been duly banked, and the only trouble was that the accused had failed to return to his employment. Hence, as no legal offence' had been committed, he (Mr. Cotter), would ask leave to withdraw the case. The application was granted*

City By-Laws.—James Jones was fined Is and costs for having , driven a 'bus, he nob being a duly licensed driver. William Paterson was fined Is and costs for not having a registered number attached to his 'bus. Mr. Paterson mentioned that all his 'buses were licensed, bufc through accident the number had not been attached to tho 'bus in question. Move On.—William O'Brien was charged with having committed a breach of the city by-laws, by standing on the footpath at the corner of Queen and Custom streets, and refusing to move on when requested to do so by Constable McCoy. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable MeCoy deposed to cautioning the man, but he seemed to doubt his authority, and continued to remain in the same place. The defendant deposed that he was not obstructing the pathway at all, but only standing on the kerb. This statement was supported by the evidence of several other witnesses. The Bench considered this continual blocking of the corners of the streets was becoming a nuisance, but the present case was not a very serious one. A fine of Is and costs was inflicted. MANGA WAI COURT.-July 15. I Before Messrs. W. B. Farrand (Chairman), T. C'oates anil P, Clarke, .T.l'.'s.] Stealing Brandy;— John Clarke and John Ellieton, gumdigj<ers, were charged by Constable Starch with stealing a jar of brandy, worth £4, from the Mangawai Hotel. Prisoners were arrested by the constable on the movmuK of the 15th instant, and the Court wns held in the afternoon. From the eviiloiico of Mr. 1). Stewart, Mrs. .Stewart, and Frederick Windsor, it appears that accused had been drinking during the day, and were in the bar during She evening. Mrs. Stewart was attending to the customers about nine p.m., but had to leave for a few minutes to go into the dining-room. Both the accused were in the bar at this time. One of them left while Mrs. Stewart was away, and reentered the room about tho same time that she did. Shortly afterwards accused left the hotel the jar of liquor was soon missed, and the immediate neighbourhood having been searched without success, Stewart and Windsor followed the men to tho house where they were staying, and found the jar there, about half the contents having been either drank or spilled. The prisoners' account of the affair was that one of them kicked against the jar shortly after leaving the hotel. This failed to convince the Court, and tha prisoners were awarded two months imprisonment with hard labour.-—[Own Correspondent.] - - - ■