SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22101, 3 November 1933, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

Thursday, November 2. IN BANKRUPTCY (Before Lis Honor Mr Justice Kennedy.) ORDERS OF DISCHARGE. Orders of discharge from bankruptcy were granted to the following persons:— Hugh William Allen (of Dunedin, fruiterer), John Millar Graham (of Dunedin), Alexander Forsyth (of Owaka, salesman), Charles Gieselor (of Wingatui, trainer), Daniel Patrick Murphy (of Dunedin, builder), Stanley David Newman (of Dunedin, grocer), Cecil G. Jackson (of Oamaru, fruiterer and confectioner). RE ANTON JACALONI.

Motion for order of discharge. Mr F. C. Dawson appeared for the bankrupt, Anton Jacaloni, of Dunedin. He" said the official assignee had seen fit to recommend suspension for a short period, but, counsel submitted, there was nothing in the conduct of the , bankrupt to. justify the court exercising its discretion in that manner. The man had been bankrupt for a considerable time, and had suffered in consequence. Mr J. M. Adam (official assignee) said he might not have been able to sheet home any offence to the bankrupt, but the man’s conduct was not satisfactory. An objectionable feature was that he went into business after a judgment had been given against him; his assets were not large, and bankruptcy overtook him. His Honor said the application would be granted, but discharge would be suspended from coming into operation for three months. RE JOSEPH HENRY M’KAY. Motion for order of discharge.

Mr A. J. H. Jeavons said the official assignee recommended, as a condition of, discharge, that the bankrupt should sub mit to a judgment of £l5O. Counsel contended that the assignee’s report did not reveal any circumstances which would justify the court in exercising its discretion in that way. The bankrupt was a hard-working man who would again in time probably be a big contractor. The official assignee said the man had been in a big way of business as a contractor. His debts were large and the dividend was small. He had been carrying on business for a considerable time. If he got his discharge he would no doubt return to his old occupation. The deficiency was ever £3OOO, and it was only fair he should do something for his creditors, A number of. men had lost their wages. If bankrupt paid £l5O it would represent only 6d in the £.

His Honor: How much did he pay? The official assignee: He paid 3£d in the £.

Mr Jeavons said that the bankruptcy followed a scries of misfortunes, and the man had suffered considerably. His Honor said he would give judgment on the following morning. RE THOMAS JOSEPH BANKS.

Motion for order of discharge.

Mr F. C. Dawson appeared for the bankrupt, an electrician, of Oamaru; Mr W. D. Taylor to oppose the motion. The official assignee (Mr J. D. Adam) also appeared. Mr 'Dawson said that the bankrupt offered 5s in the £ to his creditors before he failed, but the offer” was turned down, with the result that the creditors would now receive a dividend of Id in the £. After bankrupt returned from the war he used his gratuity money and other money to start an electrical business, but lost money through the act of another person. After his bankruptcy he was employed as a salesman but his salary was reduced until to-day he was receiving £2 10s a week. On that salary he could make no offer to his creditors. He had delayed making his application for discharge, thinking his position would improve, but itjhad not done so. As there had been no misconduct on bankrupt’s part counsel submitted he was entitled to his discharge. Mr Taylor said he represented four creditors who opposed the motion, for the reason that at a meeting of creditors the bankrupt undertook to pay out of his earnings 30s a week to provide a sum for his creditors. He was then earning £5 a week and commission. Afterwards his earnings were reduced to £4 10s. During the time he was in receipt of a reasonably satisfactory salary he made no payments to his creditors.

The bankrupt was examined on oath as to his earnings and his payments on life insurance. He admitted he had not paid anything to the official assignee out of his personal earnings. The insurance payments were made with the knowledge of his creditors. He had offered his life policies to the creditors, but the companies would not accept the assignment of the policies. Mr Taylor said the creditors felt that the bankrupt’s failure to meet them in any way would justify the court .in suspending the order of discharge for«a period. His Honor said he would give his decision on the following mprning. IN DIVORCE 7 WALKER v. WALKER. Petition for restitution of conjugal rights.—Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for the petitioner, Louis William Walker, of Dunedin, rabbiter; there was no appearance of the respondent, Eileen Juliet Walker. Petitioner said that in October, 1923, ho was married to the respondent in Dunedin. They lived in Dunedin and Karitane, and then* in Dunedin again. When he went to the country to work his wife did not accompany him. He noticed a change in her conduct and quarrels took place about her staying in town. He objected to her going to dances and parties, and this was the real cause of the trouble. In February last his wife left him, and later she wrote saying she would not return to him. „ Further evidence was heard, and his Honor made an order for restitution of conjugal rights within 14 days. LARGE v. LARGE. Petition for dissolution of marriage under a separation agreement.—Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., with Mr J. G. Warrington, appeared for the petitioner, Renee Large. There was no appearance of the respondent, Fergus William Large. Petitioner, in evidence, said she was married to the respondent in June, 1927, at Christchurch. They lived happily for a time, but then had differences, as a result of which they entered into a deed of separation in September, 1929. She had not since lived with her husband. There were no children of the marriage. ■*.

Corroborative evidence was given, after which a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after three months. PEACOCK v. PEACOCK.

Petition for dissolution of marriage under a separation agreement.—MrC. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner; Mr A. C. Hanlon, K.C., with Mr J. G. Warrington/ for the respondent, Margaret M'Leod Peacock. Mr Hanlon said he wished to intimate that an arrangement had been made under which maintenance had been .agreed upon, and later an application would be made to the court to sanction the payment. Petitioner, in evidence, said he was a mechanician. In July, 1921, he was married to the respondent at Anderson’s Bay. There were no children. As a result of matrimonial trouble a separation order was obtained in 1929, and he had not seen his wife since.

Corroborative evidence was submitted and his Honor made a decree nisi, to be made absolute at the expiry of three months. JENNINGS v. JENNINGS. Petition for dissolution of marriage under a separation order. Mr A. C. Hanlon, K. 0., with Mr J. G. Warrington, appeared for the petitioner; there' was no appearance of the respondent, James Jacob Jennings. Petitioner said she was married In Dunedin to the respondent in 19-9. There was one child of the marriage, but it died. Witness' and her husband did not live happily owing to his drinking and gambling, and the court granted her a separation and maintenance order. She had since lived apart from her husband. After corroborative evidence had been heard a decree nisi was. granted, to be made absolute after the expiry of three months, STENT v. STENT. Petition for .dissolution of marriage under separation agreement. Mr G. T. Baylee appeared for the petitioner, John Fraser, Stent, watchmaker; Mr B. S. Irwin for the respondent, Annie Stent. Mr Irwin said his client desired to be heard on the question of alimony, and remarked that she had visited his office to inform him that she would agree to a reconciliation. Petitioner said he was married to the respondent in 1909, and there were three children of the marriage. He had not lived with his wife since 1917. He Had paid her maintenance all along. In 1925 his wife wrote to him agreeing to a separation, but he had lost the letter. Other evidence was given. A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute after the expiry of three months. , MARTIN v. MARTIN. Petition for dissolution of marriage on ground of separation. Mr G. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner, Marie Gabriclle Heloise Martin; there was no appearance of the respondent, Oswald Reece Martin. Petitioner said she was married in 1918 to the respondent at Timaru. They lived in Dunedin until 1926, when they agreed to part, and a deed of separation was entered into. She had not lived with her husband since. Other evidence was heard, and a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after the expiry of three months. CADDIE v. CADDIE.

Petition for dissolution of marriage on ground of separation. Mr W. F. Forrester appeared for the petitioner, Catherine Evelyn Caddie; there was no appearance of the respondent, Frank Gordon Caddie. ’

The parties were married in 1911 at North-East Valley, and afterwards lived at Dunedin and elsewhere. There were five children. The marriage had not been happy on account of her husband’s drinking and his ill-treatment of her. In 1930 an agreement of separation was entered into, and since then she had lived apart from her husband.

After corroborative evidence a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after the expiry of three months. BUNTING v. BUNTING.

Motion for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner, John Gilmour Bunting, of Dunedin, tailor’s cutter; there was no appearance of the respondent, Peggotty Irene Bunting, The petitioner stated that the respondent,had not complied with an order of the court to resume cohabitation with him, though the opportunity bad been given to her. Two other witnesses gave evidence, after which his Honor made an order for a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months. DECREES ABSOLUTE.

Decrees absolute were made in the following cases; —Mary Ann Moore v. Albert P. Moore; Ernest M.' Keen v. Sarah E. Keen; Marcella E. Hardwick v. Martin A. Hardwick; Wilhelmina Jessie Grace Mardling v. Ezekiel A. Mardling.