THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1099, 24 March 1893, Page 29

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. Thursday, March 16. (Bofora His Honor the Chief Juatica.) Edwin James Campion and Emily Eliza Campion v. Agnus Olivkr. Claim, £2OO damages for alleged wrongful sale of property. Mr Haselden appeared for the plaintiffs (a surveyor residing at Palmerston and his wife), aud Mr Skerrett for the defendant (a single lady living in Queen street, Wellington). The plaintiffs' statement of claim set out (1) that on January 31, 1889, they leased from Hugh Beauohamp Halswell (resident in England) town aore No. 21, In Aro street,' Wellington, for 21 years, as from Ist August, 1888, at a rental of £l7 per annum for the first 8 years and 9 months, and of £24 per annum for the balance of the term ; (2) that they eub-leased to Messrß Watson and MoGovern two portions of this land at £2O per annum, and erected on a portion of the land a dweliinghouse of the value of £250 ; (3) that on or about the 17th April, 1889, they borrowed £IBO from de. feudanton mortgage of the property, interest to be at the rate of 11 per cent, reduoible to 10 per cent on payment of the interest within seven days of the due dates; (4) that tho prioclpas was made payable on Maroh 20, 1891, it being provided that if default were made in payment of either principal or interest for a month after the days appointed, the defendant might sell the mortgaged property without further oonsent of the mortgagora, but the plaintiffs' right to notice or demand for payment was not negatived In the deed ; (5) that interest was made payable on 13th days of June, September, Deoembor and Maroh ; (6) that on 13th Maroh, 1891, interest was duly paid to defondant's solicitor, who arranged with plaintiffs that paymont of prinoipal ehould Btand over indefinitely; (7) that interest was punctually paid up to Juno, 1892, and no demand for the prinoipal w»b made; (8) that defendant, while receiviug this intoreat, and while her solicitor was also receiving tho rent«, suffered the ground rent due to tho superior landlord to fall into arroar to tho amount of £22 ; (9) that on 12th September, 1892, plaintiffs reoovered judgment in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Wellington, against defendant's solicitor for £23 15a 6d, moneys rsoeived by him on ao«ount of tho said premises and withheld from the plaintiffs, aud that they applied u large portion of these moneys in paying arrears of rent due to the ground landlord; (10) that in September, 1892, defendant made a statutory declaration that default had been made under the mortgage, and a few days later advertised the sale of the property, and that this was the first and only intimation plaintiffs had of defendant's intention to sell the premises ; (11) that on 23th September, 1802, plaintiffs caused a request to be made to defendant's solicitor for au account of the moneys olaimed, and that two days later th;y were informed the following Bums were demanded besides advertising and auctioneers' charges :—Prinoipal due to defendant, £100; interest duo 13th September, £2 15s; interest to date, 7s 8d ; W. T. Wyatt, prinoipal £39 15a; intereat, £5; and solicitors' costs, £lO 10a. (12) That W. T. Wyatt's claim was in respect of an asjreament given to bim by plaintiffs to at any time give a aocurity for £3O over the Bald premises; (13) that W. T. Wyatt joined plaintiffs iu an arrangement whereby they were to raiße sufficient moneys to pay off defendant, and postpone his own claim in favour of the fresh incumbrance; (14) that on 4th October, 1892, plaintiffs gavo defendant express notice that no default having occurred, and no notice or demand for payment having been made, her action in advertising tho property for sale was wrongful, and at the sama time offered to pay principal and interest to date ; (15) that no reply was made till the 11th October, when the sums above mentioned were demanded aa a condition precedent to redemption ; (16) that on the 13th Ootober plalnti&V eolicitor tendered to defendant's eolioitor all the principal and interest due (£lO3 11a 8d), together with Interest duo 13th September last, but both offers were refused, and, subsequently, a demand was made for £24 17a 6d for coats and expenses ; (17) that in order to stay the sale plaintiffs' eolioitor offered to pay under protest £IOB, being all the money available at abort notice, but defendant refused to stay the sale, and on the 14th October sold the property for £l5O. Judgment for £2OO damages was, therefore, prayed. Defendant, by her B v .atßtnent of defence, admitted the allegations contaiusdio the Ist, 3rd, 4th and sth paragrapha of the statement of claim, but denied those contained in the 2nd and 9tb paragraphs and all the remaining paragraphs. She denied that her solicitor arranged with plaintiffa that payment of principal should stand over indefinitely; that plaintiffs' right to notice before Balo was not negatived in the mortgage deed ; that ehe ever reoeived the routs and profits of the mortgaged properties, or tha« she Buffered the ground rent to fall into arrear. In August and September, 1891, defendant made several demands, both written and verbal, for payment of the principal, and she denied that the advertisement of sale was tho first and only intimation plaintiffs had of defendant's intention to sell the premisas, or that plaintiffs evsr mtde any valid or sufficient tender of principal, interest r.nd costs, ao as to entitle plaintiff t to a stay of the sale and redemption of the mortgaged premises. Mr and Mrs Campion gave evidence iv support of their case, and for the defence tho defendant herself (now Mrs Hughes), Mr F. Wills and Mr P. Baldwin were ex. amined. Mr Haseldeu replied, aad Ilia Honor reserved judgment. Tha Court then adjourned.

Wednesday, March 22. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) COLONIAL BANK V. THOS. KENNEDY MAC* DONALD AND WIFE (FRANCES ROSSITEB MACDONALD). The plaintiff bank, by its etatemsnt o! olaim, prayed—l. That it may be declared that the purchase of tho house aud land on Wellington terrace was made with the moneys of Mrs Maodonald, and that her husband Is a trustee for her absolutely, and that the same ought to be made available for payment of the several debts aud olaima of her creditors. That all payments by her to him since his bankruptcy were fraudulent and for the purpose of defeating her creditors, and that the moneys ought to bo pa d to the plaintiff. That the sale of tho ro» versionary interest of T. K, Maodonald and of the other properties mentioned was fraudulent and collusive aud void as against I Mrs Macdonald's oredltors. Th&t an enquiry be made a* to what moneys had been received from Mrs Macdonald by ber husband, or by him on her behalf, and what oonveyanoea or other assurances of property of hers have been made to him or any person on his behalf. That T. K. Macdonald be deoreed to execute such assurances as the Court shall deem proper to render the same available to pay the debts of his wife, and be ordered to pay into Court all moneys received by him from his wife or on her behalf. That a receiver be appointed to receive all the said to hold the properties and pay Mrs Moodonald'a debts, or that the properties may be Bold and tho proceeds applied in payment of her debts. That until the final hearing of this action T. K. Maodonald may be restrained by the Court from selling, mortgaging, or in any manner alienating, charging, or disposing of the house and lands on Wellington t-rrace, the revemouary interest under his father's will, and other property hereinbefore mentioned. Mr Edwards (instructed by Mr Chap, man) appeared for the plaintiff bank, Mr George Hutohison for T. K, Macdonald, and Mr Jellicoefor Mrs Maodonald. In opening the oaße for the plaintiff bank, Mr Edwards said the matter bad been bo often before His Honor that it would be unnecessary to go into tho oase at any great length before calling evidenoe. A number of defences—which he apprehendad were alternative defences—were pleaded. There was, for instance, the defence that the furniture sold in Inverloohy House was not the property of Mrs Maodonald, but of Alfred Dunk. He apprehended that ho was not called on at present to adduce evidenoe to show that this statement of Mrs Maodonald wad inaocurate, but that be would be at liberty after Mrs Macdonald had produced evidenoe in support of this plea to produce evidenoe in reply. He did not know if his learned friends proposed to contest that point. Mr Hutchison : We do not say what we propose to do. Mr Edwards said the circumstanoos, shortly, were these : On the llth August, 1890, Mrs Maodonald gave a mortgago to the bank to secure an advanoe of £4500. This was the suhjoct of au action which had recently been before His Honor, and upon which His Honor had held the plaintiff bank was entitled to reoover. At the time this advanoe was made Mr T. K. Macdonald (husband of the mortgagor) was carrying on the business of auctioneer, and waa apparently in solvent circumstances. On the 2nd December, 1891, he was adjudicated a bankrupt. On the 3rd March, 1892, he obtained his discharge. No interost was paid in respeot of the advance from the bank to Mrs Macdonald, and the rates upon the mortgaged property, and also the ground rent were allowed to fall Into arrear—at all ovents, during the whole of last year. About the 9th June, 1392, there was an Interview between Mrs Macdonald and the manager of the Colonial Baak, in whioh she suggested that the bank should take over the mortgaged property and release her, which request the manager of the bank deolined. There was a subsequent inter' view about the 29th June, at which somathing of the same sort took plaoe, Mrs Macdonald being urgent to procure her release from all liability by oonveying the mortgaged property to the bauk, and the bank manager deolining to take such a oourae. On the same date the bank uwnjiir wrote to Mra Maodonald makiog a formal demand for payment of arrears of interest, whioh had previously been demanded verbally. Prior to this formal demaud, viz , on the 2nd May, 1892, Mrs Macdonald had entered into a oontracS with Mra Frances Mary Izard for the purchase of a dwellinghouse upon the Terrace. This waa before the first interview with the bank manager, at which Mrs Macdonald desired to be relieved from her liability to the bank by their taking over tho mortgaged property. As the bank declined to do this, the mortgaged property was put up to auction on the 27th June, 1892, and bought in by T. K. Maodonald for hia wife. The position with regard to the purchase from Mra Izard was very peouliar. Tha contraot waa entered into by T. K. Maodonald aa agßnt for his wife, and by Mr C. H. Izard as agent for Mra F. M. Izard. After the bank manager had deolined to release Mrs Maodonald from liability the positions were reversed. Mr Izard was applied to to convey the pro. perty to Mr*T. K. Macdonald, and not to Mrs Maodonald. He deolined to do so unless virtually authorised to do so by Mrs Maodonald. Some sort of license was then procured and Mrs Maodonald appeared as agent for her husband. Of oourae he (Mr Edwards) would suggest, with a great deal of confidence, that what was done in this matter waa done in oonsequenoe of the faot that between the two dates the defendants had ascertained that the bank would not release Mra Macdonald from hor liability, and that the transfer to her husbind of thecontract entered into with Mra wis intended to place Mn Macdonald boyo'ad the reach of hit creditors. Ou tha 2Ut and 22nd July the furniture in Inverloohy House, which they claimed to belong to Mrs Macdonald, w-is sold by publio auction. It wa3 not contested that this furniture was sold aud that the proceeds wore handsd over by Mrs Macdonald to hsr husband, or that he received the same with her c nuenfc. Mrs Macdonald now told thwa that althiiu^h,

she did intend to give this money to her husband, Bhe was informed that the furniture belonged to Mr Dunk, and that it had to be made good to the estate. In answer fco thia he would put in defendants' statements to the Official Assignee, in which they both stated the furniture was Mrs Macdonald's, and that the proceeds of the sale were given by her to her husband. On the 21st July also there was a sale by Mr Sidey of certain properties, which had been mortgaged by Macdonald to his wife contemporaneously with the execution of the mortgages of the 15th August, 1890, to the bank. These properties had been mortgaged by Macdonald to hia wife to seeuro her for a sum which had been advanced to her by the bank on the security of bar property, and which she forfeited to her husband. At the time of Mr Macdonald's bankruptcy a proof waa put in by Mrs MacdoDttld, in whioh these properties were valued at something like £1225 over and above tho sum of £750 which was alleged to be charged upon the securities in favour of Kobert Greenfield. At all events, the value to Mrs MacdoDald under this proof was then estimated at £1225, and yet at this sale by Mr Sidey these properties were all knooked down to the defendant, T. K. Maodonald, for the sum (according to his own evidence) of £39, and they were forthwith transferred to him. They were most insufficiently advertised, and the sole object which could have been in this sfile under these circumstances was to defraud the creditors of Mrs Maodonald, who thus transferred the properties in her name that were available for the payment of her creditors to her husband without any oontideration which could be available for her creditors. In evidence before the Official Assignee it was stated by Mrs Maodonald that even this nominal sura of £39 had not been paid. He would submit that such a sale under such circumstances and for such a sum could not possibly hold as against the creditors of Mrs Macdonald. On the 30th of July Mrs Maodonald borrowed from the A.M.P. Sooiety on the Bcourity of her husband's lifo policy, whioh was settled upon her many years before, the sum of £390. This policy was then avaiiable for her creditors, This Fnm was also forthwith handed over to the defendant T. K. Maodonald. Oq the 15th August, 1892, Mrs Maodonald walked out of Inverloohy House, which had previously been denuded of the furniture, and sent the key to the manager of the bank with a letter announcing that she was unable to pay the bank's claim, and was, thereforo, willing to transfer the property to the bank, or to any person it might direct. He would submit there could be but ono meaning to ba attached to the aots of the defendants in the present owe. Theje ware nil the matters he had need to mention in his opening, and he would now proceed to call evidence.

Robt. Orr, law clerk in the offioe of Messrs Travera and Wilford, identified his signature as attesting witness to a memo, of mortgage dated 15th August, 1890, from Mrs Maodonald to the Colonial Bank, and also to a mortgage deed of same date between the same parties; alio mortgage deed dated 15th August, 1890, from T. K. Macdonald to his wife, P. R. Maodonald, of his interest under his father's will, and annexed deed dated 13th August, 1892, between Mr and Mrs Maodonald, being an assignment of the above reversionary interest for the sum of £5 ; assignment from F. R. Macdonald to T. K. Maodonald of all her interest in the propertios inoluded in the deed of mortgage from Maodonald to his wife.

Mr Edwards asked Mr Jellicoe to produce a deed dated 13th August, 189', made between Frances R. Maodonald, Thos. K. Macdonald and the Official Assignee, whereby, for £34, Mrs Maodonald transferred to her husband her interest In various proper, tiffs (a sohedule of which was given), and the Official Assignee oonourred in the trans. fer,

Mr Jellicoe said he had no euoh document.

Mr Edwards said Mr Chapman had inspected and copied it in Mr Jelliooe's offioe.

Mr Jellicoe denied this. Mr Chapman had only soen a copy document. Mr Edwards then asked Mr Jelliooe to produce thi3 copy dooument. His learned friend had it in Court with him.

Mr JellloDe said it formed part of his brief, and he declined, therefore, to produce it.

Mr Edwards then called upon Mr T. K. Maodonald to answer to the aubrcena whioh had been served upon him to produce the document. Mr Macdonald said that ail documents in the case were in the possession of his solicitor. They had passed oat of his (Macdouaid's) possession. His Honor: But your solicitor's possession is your possession, You must not be deceived by anyone into supposing that the Court will be trifled with, but I am not suggesting you are trifling with it. Mr T. K. Maodonald : No, I hope not, Your Honor. The copy of the document is either in MrTravers' office or in Mr jellicoe's offio'j. (Subsequently the copy was pro. duced.) Mr Orr then prooeeded to swear to the execution of a mortgage deed, dated 30th July, 1892, from Mrs F. R. Macdonald to A. M.P. Society to seoure a loan of £390; deed of assignment (dated 29th October, 1874) of life polioy by T. K. Macdonald to his wife, F. It. Macdonald; and a deed dated 30th July, 1892. In answer to Mr Edwards, the witness also said he had searched for the preliminary agreement between Mrs Frances Mary Izard and Mrs Frances ftos3iter Macdonald for the sale to the latter of the Terrace proporty. He knew there was such a preliminary agree. ment because he had seen it, and he believed he had handed it over to Mr Macdonald along with certain otoer documents. Mr Edwards called upon" the learned oounsel for defendants to produce the document, but both Mr Jellicoe and Mr Hutchison denied that they had it. Mr T. K. Macdonald was then called upon his subjceaa to produoe it. He aleo denied that ho had it. Asked where it was, ho said ho believed Mr Iz*rd had it.

Richard Herbert Rathbone, clerk in the

Bank of New Zealand, produced two cheques on the bank—one a P.O. cheque and the other a Treasury cheque—and stated they were paid by the bank. One w&a dated 3rd May, 1892, and wis for £200; the other was dated sth May, and was also for £2OO. The marks on the first cheque showed that it was paid on the sth May through the Union Bank on the exchanges.

Francis Sidey, auctioneer, produced con ditions of a sale oonduoted by him on the 21et June, 1892. Mr T. K. Maodonald gave the instructions for the sale, and the conditions were prepared by T. K. Macdonald and Co. Ten days before tho sale Mr T. K. Macdonald called upon him and asked him if he would undertako the sale of some property for Mrs Macdonald. Mr Macdonald had a draft advertisement with Mm, whioh be read over, and they then fixed upon a day for the sale. Witness waa relioved of all the advertising, the prepira. tlons for the sale, and the giviug of In. formation to purchasers. (Newspaper advertisement of 14th June, 1892, produced.) He would consider tho insertion of advertisements iu one paper on tho 14th and loth June, and in anothor paper on tho 14th and 20th Juno, 1892, was sufficient advertising of the salo. He would not consider that tho particulars given in the advertisement sufiiciently described the properties offered fo? Bale. He himself received no further particulars until an hour before the s»le. He oould not say if there were any particulars annexed to the conditions of Bale. Mr Edwards o»lled Mr Macdonald upon hla subpoena to produce any particulars if there were any. Mr Macdonald said there were particulars annexed to the conditions of sale, but he had not got them now. Examination continued : He did not think there were any more particulars thin were contained in tho advertisement. Prior to the sale he had numbers of enquiries re th«) property to be sold, and could give no information. Enquirers (amongst whom were Mr Meateath and Mr Lanaaster) were referred to Mr Orr, in M-ssn Travera and Wilford's office. One of the conditions of sale was to the effect that a memorandum of the title would be handed to the purchaser, and no requiaition on or objection .to the title should be made. It waa not a cominou oondition, and he would object to it if he were a purchaser. Assuming these reversionary interests were of coueiderabla value, anyone who understood auctioneering would have dealt with them very differently. Assuming the interest in lot 2 w&3 of the value of from £250 to £3OO, do you think any rational person oonld put it up for Balo in the manner described—without reserve, and Bell it for £25 ?—Yes, seeing that there was a first charge of £750 over all these properties, How would it be possible to soil in four separate lots properties whioh were subject as a whole to a first charge?—l oould not understand that.

How oould anyone purchase under these oondltions, and subject to that statement ? Would it not be impossible for anyone to purchase any of these blocks?—Yes, unless thoy were purchasing free of tho charge. There were present at the sale Borne of the Karori syndioate (partners in lot 2, othor. wise 'Beautiful Karori'), Messrs J. Duthio, Lancaster and Jas. Wallace and others. AH the properties were knocked down for a total of £39 to Mr Lionel Harris, who signed the conditions as agent for Mr T. K, Macdonald. The interest in the Karori property (lot 2) brought £25. Cross-examined : The salo was not conducted in a secret or improper manner; nor was there the slightest collusion between himself and Mr Maodonald. He valued the Inverlochy House property, for mortgage purposes, at £4OOO, including the movable fittings, whioh he valued at £4OO. The minimum value of the Church street leasehold was £IOOO.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunoheon.

On resuming at 2 p.m Chas, H. Izard, solicitor, deposed that about the middle of 1892 ho acted as agent for his sister-in-law, Mrs Franoes M. Jzird, in the salo of a rosi* denoe and land on the Terrace to Mrs T. K, Macdonald. The terms of sale were agreed upon, and when the preliminary agreement had been signed it was handed by him to Mr Robt. Orr, clerk in the office of Messrs Trovers and Wilford, who were aoting for Mrs Mac. donold. When the agreement was drawn up it waa signed by both parties, and a copy was entered in a letter-book in Mr Mao-. donald'a office. He waited until this press copy was made before ho took the original document away to give to Mr Orr. Aa tho document was agaia called for and was not forthcoming, His Honor said this was a question of fraud, and it must affect the minds of a jury and, therefore, of the judge if there was a suppression of evidence. Mr Hutchison said Mr Maodonald had only been eubpesaaed to produce original documents, not copies.

His Honor asked what mattered these questions about notice to produce. The people all concorned lived within a stone'sthrow of each other, and suoh questions, therefore, were of little consequence ; it was not as if any of tho persons lived at Napier or Auckland.

Mr Edwards called Mr Maodonald upon his eubpeona to produce a copy of the original document, but Mr Macdonald was found not to be present. Mr Hutchison was not aware of any copy being in existence. Mr Izard said the other parky who exo' cuted tho dooumeut with him was Mr T. K. Macdonald as agent for his wife. Hi 3 Honor : Here Is a solicitor who says the document was executed, and that in his presence a press copy was taken of it in Mr Macdonald's office, and here also is Mr Orr, a oleik ia the office of Mr Macdonald'a solicitor, who cays he gave the original document to Mr Macdonald himself. What kind of inference can bo drawn? Is it the client or ia it tho solicitor who ia doing it ? Mr Jellicoe s-iid he had never heard or the alleged press copy, and had had no notice io produce it. If he had he would have made some enquiry about it.

Edward T, Moreshead, senior money order clerk in the Wellington Post Offioe, identified P.O. cheque of 3rd May, 1802. It

represented a withdrawal of the amount of £2OO from Mra Frances Roeeiter Macdonald's account iu the Post Office Savings Bank. At this stage Mr Macdonald entered the Court, and Mr Edwards again OiUed upon him on his eubpceaa to produce agreement made between Mra Izard and Mrs Macdonald through their ageata, Messrs C. H. Izard and T. K. Maodonald respectively, for purchase of a residence on the Terraoo. Mr Maodonald : There waß no euch agreement.

Mr Edwards called upon Mr Macdonald to produoa the preaa copy of above agreement.

Mr Macdonald : Thero is no such press eopy. Mr Edwards iuformed the witness Mr Izard had sw rn that a preai copy had been nude.

Mr Mac3onald uiid Mr Izird mast bo mistakeu. Only a special slip copy was taken.

Mr Edwards: Where is that special copy then.

Mr Macdonald : In tho possession of my solicitor, I preaumo. All the documents were handed over to him.

Mr Izard, recalled, produoed a dooument dated 25th June, 1892, and signed by Mra Maodonald. It was given him by Robt. Orr, and was intended to induce Mrs Izird to sell. Mr Edwards read tho document which was addressed by Mis Macdrnald to Mra Izard in the following terms : ' Dear madam,—Please convey land whioh I have agreed to purchase from you to Thoa. Kennedy Macdonald, I haviog agreed to make same purchase as his agent.'

Examination continued: This letter was written in consequence of his having declined to convey to T. K. Maodonald without formal authority from Mrs Maodonald, on the ground that the oontraot was made with her. Prior to this, viz., on the 4th May, Mrs Macdonald had made pay nient on aocount of the purchase by P.O. cheque for £2OO. The balance of the purchase money was paid over on the 27th June, 1592, the amount being £593 lis 2d. It was all paid in notes and oain—a most unusual proceeding, and one which only occurred in the case of country oli6nta who had been saving up for a long time. The contract was made originally between witness aa agqut for Frances Mary Izard and T. K. Macdonald as agent for hiß wife, tho purohaso money agreed upon being either £I3OO or £1359, of whioh £2OO was to ba paid in cash at once, and the balance of the oash in a month, and the purchaser had to take over a then current mortgage with the Government Insurance. Mrs Maodonald had practically arranged with him herself aa to what the purchase money should be, and had stated that she would obtain the money by the sale of her furniture. He had no doubt he sold the property to Mrs Maodonald.

The witness Orr, recalled, said he had seen the mi sing dooument, and it waa an agreement as between Mrs Xzwd and Mrs Macdonald.

Cross-examined by Mr Hutchison, he said the document came into his possession with a number of others. That was after the paymont of the purchase money. Charles Christie Graham, Official Assignee in Bankruptcy for the Wellington District, produced the evidence of Mr T. K. and Mrs Macdonald given before him at the bankruptcy proceedings of the former. He also produced Mrs Maodona'd'a proof of debs of £5085 in Mr Macdonald's bankruptcy. Mra Macdonald's claim was allowed, and she voted upon it, and her proxy voted upon it at tho meeting for a discharge. By Mr Jellicoe : Mr Hislop acted for him in the examination of Mrs Macdonald. Mr Chapman and Mr Edwards were there with his oonsent, but not acting for him (the Assignee). Mra Maodonald was not represented by counsel. Some objeotion was raised on account of her solicitor being absent; he thought he had told Mr Macdonald that Mr Edwards would be there to cross-examine. Mrs Macdonald asked for an adjournment, and witness then promised to see that no uufair qaestions were asked. She then oonsonted to give evidence on the faith of that assurance. Mr Hislop, objected to Mr Edwards conducting a 'fishing ' examination, and said that Mr Edwards was enquiring into matters whioh were no concern of witness'. Mr Edwards then stopped. If ho had considered the questions put by Mr Edwards were unfair he would have intervened earlier. Witness had nothing to do with the furniture or with the iife policy, or with certain securities that Mrs Mac donald put up to auction, and about which Mr Edwards asked questions of Mrs Maodonald. The amount involved in those properties was very small, over and above the incumbrances.

Reexamined by Mr Edwards : He had told Mr Macdonald that counsel would be present at the examination on the part of the Colonial Bank ; ha did not tell him specifically that couuaol would cress examine. Mr Macdonald raised an objection to his wife being cross-examined after his own examination. The cross-examination he thought was fairly conducted; Mrs Macdonald was not taken by surprise, nor wag there any duress, and he should imagine that Mrs Macdonald fully understood the meaning of what she was saying. Frederiok Wm. Haybittle, auctioneer, said he conducted a uale of furniture at Inverloohy House iu June, 1892. Mr Macdonald instructed the eale ; there was no question of ownership raised. The advertisement in the New Zeala.su Times stated that ' Meters George Thomas and Co. were favoured with instructions by Mrs Macdonald,' &o. Witness had nothing to do with that advertisement; he simply had to conduct the sale. Between 39 and 40 lots were passed in. The amount realised by the sa'e was £B2O.

The Court then adjourned until 10 o'olook next morning.