SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4169, 29 June 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

* Monday, 28th June. .; (Before His Honour Mr Justice Johnston."} IN BANKRUPTCY. FINAL OKDEBK. Mr M'Keay applied for a final order of discharge on behalf of Clifford Williams. The Irustee had been requested by the creditor to oppose; but none of the creditors put in aa appearance. His Honour, after examining the bankrupt, decided that a final order-of discharge should be. granted after the expiration, of a month. ; ■ Frank Gillan, through Mr M'Keay, applied for a final order of discharge, which was granted. ■- . , . mJI .^ Wiley ' through Mr Mouat, and Charles Skerratt, through. Mr M'Keay; made similar applications, which were also granted. • OPPOSED CASES. ..•;■. J. G. Lewis.—Mr Macassey appeared in. support of the' bankrupt's applicationvfor a. final order of discharge; and Mr Stout appeared to oppose on behalf of a creditor. J- D. Niven, examined by Mr Macassey, stated that he was a duly qualified medical practitioner, practising in Duuedin. He had examined the bankrupt, and found him suffering from the effects of serious concussion' o£ the brain, which seriously affected Ids memory. He thought it would be extremely dangerous to examine bankrupt in a public. Cout Mary Lewis, the wife of bankrupt, stated that her husband was formerly carrying on busiuess at the Kaitaugata coalpits. Fire or six years ago he fell from his horse, and was insensible for ten days. Since then his brain. h;d been affected. Witness knew Hodge, the opposing creditor. After the accident, witness acted on the advice of her jieighbouzs,and called a meeting of her husband's creditors' with whom she made a compromise; Althbugji Hodge knew that the meeting was tbbkAeM he never attended. The property mentioned in the Trustee's report as having been disposed of by witness's husband was bought with money settled uiwn witness by her father's wilL That property had been mortgaged without witness's knowledge, and the interest amounted to £40 ayear. In order to save the property for their family—they had five or six children—it -was settled upon witness after the accident It was subsequently sold for about £700, but«win£•■to the charges for interest, commission,thevmortgage, &c, very little of the money reached witness's hands. Since the accident, bankrupts and witness's means consisted only of the balance of the money realised from this property and the annuity of £270 received by witness under.her £ father's wilL Hodge and his brother were formerly employed by witness's husband^ but they had since become the proprietors of her husband's coal-pit. When witness's' father made his will, settling an anmrityuponhefself, her husband was an ironmaster and a rich roan. He was now 75 or 76 years of age, and since the accident already referred to he was unable to do anything towards earning a livelihood. Mr Stout asked His Honour, as there was a.

" '??r^ lls owt of the sale of the farm, to adjourn the case,.so that some small compromise, at any -rate, be paid to Hodge. His client did not J want all. He (Mr Stout) did not want, in a case like this, to treat the bankrupt harshly. His Honour remarked that the only property the bankrupt had was what was got under his ■wife's father's will. It would be wrong to make the wife's property for her separate use responsible for her husband's debts. Mr Stout asked the Court to do as had been none on a previous occasion, namely, that the • case might be adjourned, in order that a small ■ compromise be offered. His Honour: And if none be offered ? Mr Stout would in that case ask that the.discharge be suspended. His Honour : How long 1 Mr Stout: That is for the Court to determine. His Honour asked why should the discharge be suspended? Mr Stout replied, on the ground of a bankrupt having failed to file his declaration. His Honour did not see that. After further argument, ! Mr Stout said that whatever source the ( money came from for the purchase of the property, it was clear that the husband was ■ -allowed to treat the property as his own. It .was his own name, and he mortgaged it. The other creditors got paid. Hodge did not press, and it was only when the property was sold that J Hodge made his claim, seeing that they had a surplus. His Honour said the question was whether the surplus was available iv law for the debts of the bankrupt. It appeared that the property had lieeu left to Mrs. Lewis under her father's will, and that legally she was entitled to it for her separate use. Mr Macassey suggested that the matter should be left to Mrs Lewis's sense of honourit would be far better if left to a feeling of that kindthan being made compulsory by the Court. His Honour remarked that tins "was a very peculiar case, and one that presented very considerable difficulties. The fact that the bankrupt himself had been disabled from earning a living for a series of years, and the fact tliat his state of mind at present was such that he could not with any propriety be subjected to a cross-examination, made a difference in this case from most ordinary cases. While it was proper that an investigation should take place, lie did not think, considering the very peculiar circumstances of the case, that the bankrupt's discharge should be postponed. Final order granted. THE CASK OK .IOHX AIKMAX M'K.VV. I At the last sitting of the Court, this bankrupt applied through his solicitor, Mr Denniston, for a final order of dischaige. Mr Haggitt. ou behalf of the creditors-, opposed - • the application, ami also applied for a certificate from His Honour, under the Bankruptcy Act, in order to take criminal proceedings -against M'Kay. His Honour suspended the bankrupt's discharge for IS months, and re served his decision in the application for a certificate. His Honour now gave his decision, and said he agreed with counsel that the right view of the matter was that the certificate applied for was in the nature of a conviction viii. It was ' more than the finding of the Grand Jury, and acting in the spirit in which he found the Judges acting under similar English Acts, he did not think it would be proper for a Judge to give a certificate unless there was a clear/iW»i«Jacic case—something more than would justify a Grand Jury in sending a case before a Petty Jury. Although this was a sus] >icious case, under all the circumstances, he did not think it would be right to give a certificate. If fresh evidence were obtained, it would be quite open to the Court to grant the application :it some future time. IX BANCO. Matctix (appellant) v. Axxixg (respondent). —This was a case in appeal from the Resident Magistrate's Court, Duncdin, and had been adjourned from a previous sitting. Mr Macassey and Mr Ha^fgitt for Martin/Mr Barton for 1 Anning.^^^^ was heard for the appellant. ■ri^^H^^^ffou submitted arguments to the fol- : —It was admitted that there distinct sets of transactions—the first M'llroy and the passengers, purport to be for Martin ; and the second between M'llroy, Findlay, and Co., and Martin, and -with which the passengers had nothing to do. " He submitted—First, that. Martin authorised M'llroy to issue tickets (and that therefore it was to Martin that those who had taken pa.ssages should book); and, secondly, that if j M'llroy had no such authority, subsequent transactions between Martin and the passengers amounted to a ratification by Martin of M'llroy's act. He submitted arguments in support of his contention. Mr Macassey replied: His Honour "reserved judgment.