SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3036, 22 May 1912, Page 34

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Friday, May 17. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) When the court resumed at 11 o'clock the case aga.nst Margaret Parker, on a charge of sly grog-selling, was called on for a new trial. Mr J. F. M. Fraser (Crown Prosecutor) intimated to the court that he proposed to ask that the case stand over until the next criminal session. He pointed out that he desired an opportunity of conferring with the Crown Law Office. His Honor said he presumed that Mr Fraser had die right to do this. Mr Hanlon pointed out that the accused had been formally remanded until Monday, and he asked if the court would sit on Monday to bind accused over. His Honor said accused could be bound by the registrar in the same recognisanco as previously, to appear at the next criminal session. The case was accordingly to stand over. IN CHAMBERS. Probates were granted in deceased persons' estates as follows: —John Hutton (Mr Duncan), Isabella Howio Dawson (Mr Walsh), Mary Ann Thomson (Mr Calvert), John Moffat (Mr Stephens). Letters of administration were granted in the estate of Amelia Eliza Lambert (Mr Macalister). Re Jane Thomson (deceased). —Motion for registrar to report as to commission, etc. (Mr Liliicrap).—Referred to registrar. Finkle v. Finkle.—Motion to dispense with personal service (Mr Bedford). —The order asked for was granted, an answer to be filed within 21 days of advertising. Re Thomas Keenan (deceased).—Motion for directions as to service (Mr Fraser, K.C.). —Service to be one insertion in the New Zealand Gazette; hearing throe weeks aftor insertion.

Clarkson and another from Sullivan.— Motion for extension of time for filing lease (Mr Finch). —Accordingly; to be registered on or before 18th. IN BANCO. Ro James Robertson (deceased).-—Motion for order nisi for graint of administration (Mr A. E. Duncan).—Rule nisi granted, returnable within seven days of service. Robinson v. Robinson and Others. — Motion for order confirming service and 1 appointment of guardian ad litem (Mr Hay).—An order was made in term of prayer. IN BANKRUPTCY. Monday Mat 20. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) IN HE W. N. M'KEAN. William Nelson M'Kean, of Dunedin. agent, applied for an order of discharge, Ule application being supported by Mr Irwin. The Official Assignee (Mr F. H. Morice) said he did not think ho could object to the application. Plaintiff had embarked upon a business that he did not understand. Ho was a carpenter by trade, and had gone into tho land, estate, and agency business, which had not turned out a success. There w;ts nothing to show that bankrupt had withheld anything. His Honor remarked that the bankruptcy was a small one, and that bankrupt had a wife and four children. An order of discharge would be made. IN RE E. 0. WINTER. Ernest Charles Winter, of Stirling, labourer, applied for an order of discharge. Mr W. L. Moore, who appeared for him, said tho case was one in Avhich bankrupt had gone in for something bigger than he could manage. The Official Assigneo informed the court that Mr William Williams, one of the creditors, objected strongly to the order of discharge being granted. At tho meeting of creditors bankrupt had been cross-exam-ined a length, and a motion that ho bo recommended for immediate discharge proposed, bui tho motion lapsed for want of a seconder. Mr Williams, to whom the sum of £SO was owing, was present to oppo.e bankrupt'© discharge being granted. \\ illiatns considered that bankrupt had rot kept proper books, and that he had lived extravagantly, and had an interest in a dairy farm leased by his wife. His Honor asked if there was any evidence to show that it was a case where bankrupt had put noney into his wife's property. The Official Assignee replied that he had no information of the sort. The property was a small dairy farm of 40 acres. Mr Moore said the debt was a very old one, and Williams had refused to accent a dividend of 5s in the pound, which had been paid to the other creditors. Bankrupt had been working at Sawyers' Bay when ho got into difficulties. Then he went on to a farm at Stirling, the money having been advanced by his brother, who sold tho farm out when he saw that it was not going to be. a success. There had been dry seasons and rx>or crops. Several creditor? had considered Winter to bo a very hard-working man. The property leased by bankrupt s wifa was a small one. and tho cattlo were subject to a bill of sale. She and her family worked the farm, while her husband went out working in the neighl>ourhood. Bankrupt, examined "by Mr Williams, stated that he was indebted to his brother, but ho did not know to what extent. He had knowledge of an intention to oppose the order of discharge. Ho had not been practically barLkrr.pt at Sawyers' Bay. but ho would not swear that he had not been in difficiihies there. ITe had not sold everything at Sawyers' Bay. He was supposed to have gone into farming in the Clutha Valley with a partner, but tho partner had backed out. Ho had had a very bad season, r.nd could not average his yield of potatoes. His wife had 10 cows on the leaded farm, and had also a horse and carts. Messrs Moore, Moore, and Niehol had advancer; the money to put stock on the farm. It was true that ho had sworn at tho creditors' meeting that he Jiad given his earnings to support his wife and family, ami his avcraere earning? would be about 6s a day. If his wife milked 10 cows it was her affair, and he had no interest whatever in the farm "When he oould not get work in the neighbourhood he worked on his wife's farm. lie considered it was only right that ho should do so. It was not true that he ha:l torn loaves out of his ledger, and he would ewear that he had not a sixpence when he was sold out of his farm. Mt Williams remarked that that seemed almost incredible. Examined by Mr Moore, bankrupt said the elebt to Mr Williams hnd been contracted eight years ago. The dobt was

to Mr Williams's elder brother, but it was William Williams who had called upon him to pay it, and eventually he had given him a promissory note ior £SO. Apart from that he had had no financial transactions with William Williams. Mr Williams lemarked that it seemed incredible that anyone should have advanced £l2O to a man who was practically bankrupt. Hie Honor, after further examination, suggested that Mr Williams might have got the Official Assignee to make inquiries as to matters,. and eaid if after bankrupt waa in difficulties his wife started farming witn. cattle of her own that probably wanted ex-' planation The Official Assignee said that he hid" not heard of ail tins bei'ore that occasion. It was a pity this haa not been brought up at the oreditors' meeting. His Honor eaid he was inclined to think • bat if the Assignee made some further investigations it would be as well. Ixink-:-upt was living with his wife on the fam, and there were cattle on the farm which were alleged to be the property of. bankrupt's wife. He (His Honor) did not suppose they were not, and he thought it was reasonable to assume that the story told by bankrupt was probably the true one. But the creditors had a right to know something in the nature of corroboration c-f that statement. Mr Moore said the business had been done through)-his firm's office, and the Official Assignee cculd get the particulars very quickly there. The Official Assignee. Unless it can be Ciearly shown that moneys have been advanced to the wife really on bankrupt's behalf there wouM be nothing in it. Mr Williams: I made Inquiries, but I did rot know of these particulars when tho meeting of creditors was held. His Honor. I thiuk it would bo well to n ako some further investigations. If these investigations show what "you (bankrupt) have s-nd to be true, you will get your discharge. The c-ue was then adjourned to the 6th June IN CHAMBERS. Probate of the will of Janet Bayley was granted, and letters of administration de bonis non in re Margaret Robertson, deceased, were granted to I. R. M. Robertson.. Paul v. Paul.—Application for the appointment of guardians ad litem —Granted.

DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS. WELLINGTON, May 17. In the Divorce Court to-day, before the Chief Justice, decrees nisi were granted in the following cases:—Evelyn Annie Monk v. Edgar Guy Monk, desertion and failure to maintain; Mabel Adelaide Caulton v. Bert Harry Houden Caulton, drunkenness and cruelty; Harold Armstrong v. Anna Theresa Armstrong, inmate of a mental hospital; Alice Ethel Soffe v. Harry Soffe, desertion; Charles George Lamb v. Lucy Jane Lamb, adultery; Isabella Humphries v. Archibald Win, Mace Humphries, desertion and failure to maintain; Maud Leaoh v. George Leaoh, desertion; Ariel Eliza Eeonomos v. Haralambos Economos, desertion ; Emma Charlotte Campbell v. John Wm. Campbell, desertion and failure to maintain; Edith Gertrude Keller v. Wm. Joseph Keller, adultery; William Pollock v.' May Pollock, adultery; Guston Edwin Pearson v Harriet Pearson, adultery; Wm. Robert Swaiuson v. Annabel M'Leod Swanson, desertion ; Florence May Paulsen v. Arthur Paulsen, drunkenness and cruelty.