LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9831, 28 May 1895, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.-In Bankruptcy.

Monday. . [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.3 ORDERS OP DISCHARGE.

An application for an order of discharge was made for Edward Simpson; but the debtor did nob .appear, nor was he represent by counsel, and the case was allowed to stand over.

Mr. Brookfield appeared in support of an application for an order of discharge for Walter Hill, who was present. His Honor pointed out that the report of the Official Assignee was by no means favourable. Mr. Brookfield eaid the opposition was only by one creditor, and when the debtor asked to have specific charges made, in order that he might answer them in a public examination, the opposition was withdrawn. Mr. Tole said he was instructed by the Official Assignee to say that Mr. Brookfield's statement was substantially correct. The debtor had been pursued by this one creditor, but further the debtor's books were in an unsatisfactory state of muddle, although not to such an extent as to warrant the enforcement of the penal clauses. His Honor said the debtor had been carrying on at a loss for years, and ought to have filed before. His discharge was suspended for six months.

Mr. Stewart applied for an order of discharge for David Cleary. Mr. Tole said the assignee did not objecb. There being no opposition, the order was granted. George Enos Hollo way was to have appeared in person to apply tor an order of discharge. He resided ab Te Awamutu, and was not present, and the application was allowed to stand over.

Mr. Jackson Palmer asked for an order of discharge for Wm. Lonergan. There was no opposition, and the assignee's report was nob unfavourable. The order of discharge was granted. Mr. Tylden moved for an order of discharge for John Whiteman. No opposition. Order granted. Mr. Buddie applied for an order of discharge for Fredk. Street. Mr. McGregor appeared for Mr. Buddie, and asked that the application might be allowed to stand over. Hie Honor said that would be necessary, as no affidavit had been filed. The adjournment was granted. Mr. Stewart applied for an order of discharge for Charles Easberbrook Smith, contractor, and in doing so said he understood that the Official Assignee's report was not favourable, but he did not oppose the application, and none of the creditors opposed. His Honor said the bankruptcy was a most unsatisfactory one. The bankrupt started in 1889 with a liability and apparently with no assets, and he had been bankrupt for some time before he filed. There being, however, no opposition, and due notice of the application having been advertised, he should only order that the discharge be suspended for six months. JAMES WHITELAW'S BANKRUPTCY.

In the matter of the bankruptcy of James Whitelaw, storekeeper, Kamo, there was a motion on the order paper by Mr. Campbell (Russell and Campbell) that an order of discharge be granted to the bankrupt. Mr. Campbell now applied to have the application adjourned till after the criminal sittings, and Mr. Tole, who appeared for the Official Assignee, consented. The application was adjourned till next sitting in bankruptcy.

• RE JABEZ AND JOSEPH FITNESS. In this bankruptcy, Mr. McGregor moved that Hector Sutherland be allowed to prove against the estate. Mr. McGregor said certain affidavits had been filed by the Official Assignee, which he had been unable to notify Mr. Sutherland of, and he desired to file answering affidavits. He would therefore ask that the application stand over till next sitting. Mr. Tole, for the Official Assignee did not object, and the adjournment was granted.

APPEAL. In the matter of the bankruptcy of John Hart, Mr. Cooper moved to rescind the decision of the Official Assignee. Mr. Tole appeared for the Official Assignee. Mr. Cooper said the appeal was made under section 101 of the Act. The Official Assignee had rejected a proof of debt lodged by one Broadbent, on the ground that he was a partner. Section 68 gave the general power of appeal. After some reference to the law, bo asked that an issue might be tried, aye or nay, was Broadbent a partner, to be set down for the July sittings. Mr. Tole consented. His Honor said counsel could agree on the issues under section 15 and rule 34, and he would order that the issues be.tried by a jury of four, at the civil sittings commencing on the 22nd of July. The question of costs of this application was reserved till after the trial.

POLICE COURT. -Monday. [Before Mr. H. W. Northcroft, S.M.J

Drunkenness. — Three first offenders were discharged with a caution.

Police Offences Act.Thomas Thompson, John Dunn (alias James Dunn), and Percy Perry were charged with having been found by night without lawful excuse in the dwelling-house of Samuel Quoi, situate in Albert-street. The accused admitted having gone to Quoi's boarding-house and taken rooms without Mr. Quoi's permission. A friend had, they said, promised to pay for their board and lodging, and being under that impression they each took a room. As the men promised to leave Auckland the next day His Worship adjourned the case until Saturday, at the same time warning them that if they were found in the city on that day they would be severely dealt with.

Alleged Assault. — Frederick Clark was charged with having on the 18th May unlawfully assaulted one Bernard Williams. Mr. Mahony appeared for the complainant and Mr. Brassey for the defendant. There was also a cross action, the defendant charging the complainant with assaulting him. Both cases were taken together. Mr. Mahony in opening the case said the parties were neighbours living in Hobsonstreet, and had been so for some years past. Mr. Clark, it appears, was a bib of a poet and had used his talents in the direction of composing poems of a very offensive character, in which he sought to bring in the names of Williams and his family. On the day in question the complainant had gone to the defendant and asked him why he was continually annoying him in the manner complained of. One word brought upanother and finally the defendant assaulted Williams in a violent manner. Evidence was given by the complainant, Dr. Hooper, and Geo. Masson, a butcher. The latter stated that he had gone to Clark and asked him what he had been writing upon him. Clark assured witness that he had not in any way referred to him in his writings. At the same time he read to witness several verses that were directed at Williams, and during the reading the latter came in and complained. Clark threatened Williams with a chair, and afterwards threw a fourpound weight at him. Cross-examined by Mr. Brassey : Witness said that he did a little singing himself. He preferred sentimental music, and never sought to make fun of his neighbours in hU verses. The defence was that whatever was done by the defendant was done in self-defence, and that Williams was the aggressor. His Worship commented at some length upon the statements of both parties. He characterised the whole proceedings as a childish neighbours' quarrel. The defendant Clark was fined 10s, and costs £2 19s, and Williams 10s, and costs £1 Is. Seizure of Tobacco.— A middle-aged man named John Campbell, appeared to answer a charge of having on the 25th May had in litis possession 601 bs of tobacco upon which no duty had been paid. Mr. McAlister (instructed by the Collector of Customs) conducted the prosecution, whilst Mr. Thomas Cotter appeared for the accused. The latter admitted the offence. Mr. McAlister said he had been instructed to set the facts of the case before the Court, and to ask for the heaviest penalty that the law allowed. The accused had been suspected of smuggling by Detective Chrystal, who applied to the Collector of Cutfeoms to issue a search warrant. The result of this was that 501bs of tobacco had been found in accused's house. When arrested the man admitted having smuggled the tobacco. Th<j Collector of Customs was anxious that the full penalty of the law should be inflicted, and for that reason he pressed for the fine of £100 rather than three times the value of the goods. Mr. Northcroft imposed the full penalty of £100, with costs £1 Bs. The fine was paid, but Mr. Cotter intimated that he- would apply to the Commissioner of Customs for a reduction. ■<;..•'•, ,:■.;.■.: '..■./. ■■ J ; i"'--&;