SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 6692, 28 September 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY. Wednesday, Sepiembbb 27. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Bichmond.) HE 3. L. MOWITT. , Mr Gully renewed his application for the ‘debtor’s discharge. Since the. last time the Court sat the debtor had been examined before the Trustee, and Ml Gully submitted that there was bo reason why the discharge should not be granted, Mr Hutchison, on behalf of Mr Burns, one of the creditors, opposed the discharge, chiefly on the ground that a piano, part of the assets of the estate, had been concealed. The debtor said the piano had been given to his daughter on her marriage, and the Trustee said be was satisfied in the matter. His Honor said on the whole he •would allow the order to go. Order for discharge granted.

IN BANCO.

Wednesday, September 27. '(Before their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Richmond.) THE CREDITORS’ TRUSTEE IN THE ESTATE OF PURSES V. THE BANE OP NEW ZEALAND. This case came up again for argument on the question as to whether the debtor’s bankruptcy, on his filing of his declaration, had a relation back to a prior act of bankruptcy. Mr Trarers submitted that there was relation 'back to the prior act of bankruptcy (t» re Mackay, 2 N.Z. Jnr., N.S., 231). In that case Mr Justice Williams said there was no relation back on the filing a declaration of insolvency, but the Act of 1879 was passed to meet this decision. Under section 4of that Act the filing of the declaration has the came effect as if an adjudication had been made on a creditor’s petition ; and bad a petition been presented, the bankruptcy would have the necessary relation back. Mr "Stafford, for the Bank, contended that the 4th section of the Act of 1879 must be read literally. The Legislature has carried the bankruptcy back to no further date than the filing of the declaration. It was a mere repetition of the existing law. The act of bankruptcy relied on was said to be the -execution of the deed of arrangement. But this was not an act of bankruptcy under sections 29 and 147 of the Act of 1876 until a petition was presented within two months after the failure to obtain an order for a' declaration of complete execution. Therefore, at the time of the set-off, no act of bank■mptcy had been committed. Mr Travers, in reply : It is not necessary that the act of bankruptcy should have been followed by a creditor’s petition. If there is relation back, this is one of the cases in which it would apply. -Judgment was reserved.

ARIHIV. BUSSELL AND OTHERS. Mr Travers, on behalf of the plaintiff, moved -for a decree. First, that out of the latest accumulations (amounting to some £1363} the .£IOOO which bad been misappropriated by ths trustees and Arihi should be replaced ; that the balance of £363 should be paid into Court to the credit of the cause, and be treated as the earliest accumulations ; and that the costs of the plaiutiffs and defendants should be paid out of the corpus. Mr Chapman, for the trustees, and Mr Bell, for the defendant Eusaell, consented. Decree made. BUSBELL T. ARIHI AND OTHERS.

Mr Bell, on behalf of the plaintiff, thenmoved in this cause that the sum of £368, paid 'into Court iu the previous suit, should b* paid, to the plaintiff Russell, who had obtained a judgment against Arihi. He cited EitsGibbon v. Blake, Moore v. Moore, Pyke ▼. Eitz<2ibhoD. There are Items in the particulars 'which would, on the authority of these cases, swallow up the above amount. The defendants, Arihi and Hamioro, are the unsuccessful parties to the suit. The costs of the trustees are more difficult to deal with ; but there isi -another fund, viz., the £IOOO restored to •capital (see last case), oat of which the costs -of the trustees should be paid. D’Oechner v. -Scott, 24 Beav., 237 ; Butler v. Cumpston, Xi.R. 7, Eq. 16- Mr Travers, for the defendant Arihi, and Mr Chapman, not called od, Mr Justice Richmond said he coaid not -charge the trustee’s costs on the fund of the •estate.