SUPREME COURT.—IN BANKRUPTCY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4163, 22 June 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANKRUPTCY.

Monday, 21st June. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Johnston.) ADJUDICATION. , ..-*.„. Mr Stout applied in support of a creditor's**' petition, praying that G-. H. Campbell, should be adjudged bankrupt. Application granted DECLARATION OF COJIPLETE EXECUTION. Deeds of arrangement and assignment filed by F. A. Beck, Roderick M'Leod and Conrad, Fownes, S. and J. Reeves, were declared com.—; ■" pletely executed. ' . , ' - FINAL ORDERS OF DISCHARGE. Final orders were granted in the followingcases : — Johu Meek, Henry Hanson Paul, Thos. Fergusson, — Sckolefield, Hy. Parsons. A. D. Corfield. Robei-t M'Kenzie. —On reading the trustee's report in this case, His Honour remarked that ' the bankrupt appeared to have followed a precarious aud unprofitable business (having many, other pursuits, the bankrupt had followed'thafi " of a canvasser and collector). His Honour (to the bankrupt): What were- .' you brought up to ? ■' -' : M'Kenzie : I have generally had miscellaneous employment. ■ His Honour: Have you any particular business or profession 1 M'Kenzie: No. I was at sea for manyyears. ; His Honour : Oh—you still seem to be very much at sea. I would advise you to try some other line in life which might be more laborious and a little more lucrative. If you take my advice, you will leave your miscellaneous pursuits, and stick to one thing. Your dischai-ge is granted. opposed cases. ' ■'■ ■: Eumcxd Filewood.—Mr Stamper, on behalf of the bankrupt, applied fora final order of discharge. The application was opposed'by John Russell, one of the creditors. After:-hearing\ evidence, His Honour suspended the bankrupt's • discharge for three months. -.■■-.'... ■-rA-: John Aikaian M'Kat.—Mr Denniston ap- -.-« peared in support of the bankrupt's application for a final order of discharge. . " Mr Haggitt stated that he appeared on behalf of the general body of creditors, not only to oppose the application for bankrupt's discharge, but also to apply for a certificate nnder the' - Bankruptcy Act, in order to found proceedings - for a prosecution for misdemeanour. The bankrupt, in the course of his examine tion by !Mr Haggitt, stated that prior, to hfe insolvency he had been carrying on business as ," a butcher at Anderson's Bay aud Kensington. ;: ■ After giving particulars as to 'the sale of his business and some freehold property at Kensington prior to his bankruptcy, M'Kay went on to state that two months before his insolvency, and when his business was in a prosperous condition, he had borrowed L 43 from a. Airs Serke, who was a neighbour and a cu&tomer of his. He borrowed the money to enable him to can-y on his business transactions. He received the money in Mrs Reid's ' presence and at her house. At tliat time his head was all crooked with drink and anxiety with regard to his family affairs. He gave anI O U to Mrs Serke, and repaid her out of the proceeds of the property in Kensington. Aboufc twelve months before his insolvency he also borrowed LB4 from-Mrs Reid. He frequently borrowed money from Mrs Reid and never gave her any interest. When witness spld his pro- ' perty at Kensington Mrs Reid asked for her " ■• money and lie repaid her. She never asked for it before, and it was never stated between them. - when he was to repay the amount. Witness was doing a flourishing business until he sold off. (The bankrupt stated first that his creditors were pressing him before he sold off, bufc afterwards admitted that they did not press " him until after he had soldoft) He did nofc know what became of the money (over LlOO) which remained in his possession after he repaid Mrs Reid and Mrs Serke. Witness had beea.-" drinking, and at that time was nearly in a state . oi* delirium tremens. Witness was living afc that time at Mrs Reid's house iv Kensington, and in other parts of • the town. Witness was not hiding from his creditors. He was separated from his wife, wh» had obtained a protection order. He was rot charged with assaulting or deserting his wife; and his coimection with Mrs Reid had

nothing to do with the, protection order. The -protection order was granted without his knowledge. Witness, had been brought up on a fraud summons, and imprisoned for 20 days. In reply to -Mr Denniston, the bankrupt stated that his wife used to cany on his business, and he confined his attention to buying stock, and slaughtering. His wife kept the books, and reiused to comply with witness's request to •employ a clerk. It was principally owing to drinking habits that his wife obtained a protection order. Eliza Reid stated that she was a married woman living at Kensington. Her husband's name was Edward Reid, and he was a labourer. -She had been married to him two years, but .ther -only lived together about 11 months. Witness had some property, and Roid thought he was to come into possession of it, but she had settled all of it on her children by a former marriage. After Reid discovered ' this fact, they .never agreed. Witness was in receipt of L 3 per week, and sometimes made L 2 a week by dressmaking. Witness hnd seven children ; altogether. After M'Kay left his shop in Ken--sington, helodged with witness. Witness lent M'Kay LSO in March, 1574. Witness was then living with her husband. She luid the money by her. She first intended to use it for building a house, -but she resolved to lend it to M'Kay, because Iter husband wanted to get it. Witness got an lOU from M'Kay, aud he repaid it at witness's request. Witness asked the money from him because he was drinking hard, .- and she was afraid she would never see if again! M'Kay lived at -witness's home until lie was imprisoned, and he was living there now. He had not done any work since, and did not give her any money to keep for him. Emily Serke stated she was a married woman, ■ and lived at Kensington. Her husband was a labourer. She lent L 43 to M'Kay because Mrs Reid asked her to do so. She was Mrs Reid's tenant, and Mrs Reid promised to be security ifor the repayment of Abe inonev. J. S. Wright, -of tLe firm of Wright. Stephenson, and Co., gave evidence as to "M'Kay's state when brought up before the R. M. Court. He did not then appear to be suffering frojo. > 'delirinut. (remi'iis. Mr Haggitt stated .that he thought he would -have been able to prove that the payments made to itrs Reid and Mrs Serke were fictitious transactions, and that bankrupt had de- ' posited the money with them for his own use at a future time. However, he thought he had _ shown sufficient to justify His Honour in granting a certificate under the Act for a criminal prosecution on the ground that bankrupt had '■ not shown what he had done with the greater part of his property. Mr Denniston contended that a sufficient case had not been established for the granting of a certificate, and that if the creditors wished to bring a criminal prosecution they could do so under the Act without seeking to prejudice the jury against the bankrupt by means of a certificate given by the Judge. His Honour suspended the bankrupt's discharge for IS months, and stated that he wonld reserve his decision for a week on Mr Haggitt's application for a certificate. The Court then adjourned.