SUPREME COURT.—IN BANKRUPTCY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6351, 20 June 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANKRUPTCY.

Monday, 19th June, (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) BE JOHN CHIRNSIDE. Motion for final order of discharge. The bankrupt failed to appear, and not being represented by counsel, the application was ordored to stand over. .-..-■ HE JAMES CARNKGY. Motion for final order of discharge. Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared for the debtor, and the application being unopposed, the order of discharge was made. • HE THOMAS FARRELL. Mr Stamper appeared to support the application ; Mi-. Kettle, on behalf of the only creditor (Messrs Keast and M'Carthy's trustees), to oppose, His Honor: The only creditor? Mr Kettle: Yes.; Instead of paying us he paid his lawyer to go through the Court.: I intend to raise the question whether he can take advantage of the bankruptcy law when there is only one creditor. Mr Stampei-: The debtor is here, and will submit to examination. His Honor: It is a most: extraordinary application. There is only one debt, of £43 odd, and the man is earning £10 per month. There are no assets. Why should he be discharged ? Mr Stamper: He has a wife and family of five children to support. The,property is in the wife's name, and so is the ■ household furniture, The opposing creditor has shown hostility to the debtor all along, and never rendered him an account before, summoning him. Furthermore, the goods were supplied to the defendant's wife without his knowledge. His Honor : Then defendant's wife ought to pay out of her separate estate. Mr Kettle: The defence was that she kept a store, in which the husband had no interest His Honor: Where is this household fur-niture,-Mr Stamper? It is in the wife's house is it not ?

■Mr Stamper: It is in his wife's house. In order to allow the matter to appear in a proper, light, I respectfully ask you to allow mo to cross-examine the debtor. As a matter oE fact I' was not present when the debtor was examined.

His Honor did not think .Mr Stamper could cross-examine his own client, but allowed him to examine the debtor in the ordinary way. Thomas Farrell (the debtor), on being sworn, said : I made a settlement on my wife in the latter end of the year 1872. At that time I was not owing anything. No bill was sent in for this claim by Keast and M'Carthy. I got the summons before any account was delivered. Mr Kettle objected to this line of examination as irregular if the object was to show that the amount was not due.

His Honor : You cannot go behind the judgment, Mr Stamper.

Examination continued: I am a Heaman, and only get home twice a week. My wife has been keeping a boarding-house and a store. There is a mortgage on the property of £200, the instalments of which are £3 8s per month. I have a family of six, and. my wages are £10 per month.

His Honor: That is misleading, Mr Stamper ;do not try and mislead me. I have seen his examination, and one of his children is 22 years of age, and another, I think, is earning his own living. How many are at work ? The debtor: Two of the boys earn enough to keep them in boot leather. One of my girls is 22 years of age, and the eldest boy 19 years, and the youngest child about 10. Mr Kettle: What has it cost you to go through the Court as far as you have gone ? The debtor: Ten pounds. I have paid my solicitor that sum.

Was that just before you filed ?—No, it was about a week since. I had not the money then, but have since borrowed it. The cottages and land bring in a, rent of £1 per week, do they not ? —Not now; they are only bringipg in about 11s per week, the pair of them.

Immediately after judgment you walked from one Court to the other ana filed your schedule, did you not?—No ; I filed about two hours afterwards. I did not then know that the plaintiffs .were willing to take so much per month,

At the time you filed, were you ablo to pay anything per month towards the debt?—l did not deem that I owed it.'

Then was-it not the case that you filed.not because you could not pay, but because you did not think you ought to pay the debt ?—lt would have taken mo yoars to pay: 1 could not have paid it in three years. • ' • -i Mr Kettle was about to address the Court.

) His Honor: You need not trouble. It.is quite absurd that the debtor should come for an order of discharge in this case. There is only one debt owing by him; that debt was ! incurred by his wife, who keeps a store with his ■ knowledge and consent, and the wife has con- ■ siderable settled proporty of her own. The • husband also has a considerable income, and 1 there"is no reason at all why he should riot pay the debt in full. T shall make no 1 order of discharge—make no order at all, in fact, either suspending or granting the discharge. THOMAS -WILLIAM MCSIIO. Motion for order : of discharge. ■ Mr Stamper appeared for the debtor, and stated that at the meeting four creditors attended, representing £35, while the total liabilities were £113. Those creditors had passed a resolution that no order of discharge be granted, but no notice of opposition had been received. His Honor: The fact that they have passed such a resolution puts me on inquiry, to see whether the discharge ought to 'be made or not. Mr Stamper said the trustee had reported that he was satisfied, and none of the creditors appeared. . His Honor: They need not appear here.- I think it would put them to considerable expense, and I suppose they do not want to throw good monej' after bad. Mr Stamper said that the principal creditor was satisfied that the debtor should have his discharge. . . Mr C. White, the creditors'trustee, stated that four of the creditors who attended the meeting were men to whom the bankrupt had assigned his .contract for.roadmaking, •. on account of wages due to them. .When the contract was completed there might b& something left for the creditors, and it might become his duty to take action respecting it. His Honor: As,'t'e creditors have not chosen to appear, and as I gather from what the trustee states that the creditors who did pass the resolution to oppose had no locus stamli in the matter, I am unable to ascertain the grounds on which there was any opposition, and therefore I see no. reason for withholding the order of discharge.—Order granted. : .

HE 6EORGE BOAEDMAK. Motion for final order of discharge. Mr Macdonald, who appeared" for the debtor, said that there was no notice of opposition, but that he considered it right to draw the attention of the Court to the fact that the report of the trustee was unfavourable. The

trustee was not now in Dunedin, and he believed was not likely to return. This matter had only recently come into his (Mr Macdonald's) hands.

His Honor : As there is no opposition, and as the trustee is not represented, and does not appear, and as the matter has been in the Court already 10 months, I see no reason for suspending the order of discharge. The only thing I see that might bo a ground for suspending the order would be tliat no proper accounts were kept, but that is explained to a certain extent. The order has been actually suspended for a considerable period. Tne order of discharge *is granted.

This concluded the business,