Supreme Court.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 258, 11 March 1869, Page 2

Supreme Court.

: — .*. IN BANKRUPTCY. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Gresson.) His Honor held a sitting under the Bankruptcy Acts, at the Old Town Hall, at eleven o'clock this morning, Last Fxaminations — New Cases. re arthur ward. . Mr. Joynt appeared for the bankrupt, and applied for the order of discharge. His Honor eaid that he must adjourn the case nominally until the Bth April. The mutter will reully be heard on Thursday, the 6th May. The necessary information should hays been furnished to the trustee in proper time. HE THOMAS WILLIAM ROBSON. Mr Sinter nppeared for the bankrupt, and applied for the final order of discharge. Mr Graham reported as follows: — The ban!;ru: t was lately master of the schooner Mary Ann Christina, trading between Lyttelton and Hokitikii, in October last, and having met with bad weather, as shewn by his protest, a considerable quantity of the cargo became damaged. for this he was sued in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Hokitika, and two amounts, together £183 S* 4d, were given ngainst him; and this is his excuse for peeking the protection of the Court. There is no estate; but I have not had any no' ice of opposition. The bankrupt has not kept any accounts. His Honor asked the bankrupt why it was that there was no estate. The bankrupt explained that he had sustained heavy . losses, and had been out of employment for a long time. ■ Mr Slatvr explained that the bankrupt had sustained losses in consequence of actions being brought against him by two consignees in respect to damaged cargo. His Honor aaked how it was that the actions were brought againsi; the bankrupt, and not against the owners. Mr Slater said he believed it would be found that the actions had been wrongly brought. ' '•: : : His Honor said that, as there was no opposition, he would grant, the final order of discharge. .^^ ~""*| , ~ '^Vfj'-Mj

Order made accordingly i . - ; BE THOMAS VINGOE GLABSOK. .'.. Mr Cowlishavr applied for an adjournment of this case, as the bankrupt had been unable to file the accounts in time. Mr Graham said he had had no communication with tiie bankrupt. His Honor said that, under these circumstances, he would adjourn the case until the 6ih May. Adjourned accordingly. RE EDWIN HOOPER. Mr Cowlishaw applied for an adjournment of this case. Mr Graham reported that he had had no communication with the bankrupt, and it was necessary, therefore, that the case should be adjourned. His Honor ordered an adjournment until the Gth May. ADJOURNED CASES. RE CHARLES FREDERICK WORTH. Dr Foster appeared for the bankrupt, aivl Mr Wynn Williams appeared to oppose, stating that notice hud b:en served before last sitting day. The bankrup. was not in attendance when called on. -~ Dr Foster said that the bankrupt had instructed him an hour before. He did not know how to account for his non-attendance. His Honor said he would adjourn the matter until after the disposal of the rest of the cases. ■ RE THOMAS HILL. Mr Cottrell appeared for the bankrupt, and Dr Foster for Mr Joshua Page, a creditor. After some discussion, the case was further adjourned until the 6th of May. RE DWID SCOTX. Mr W-ynii Williams appeared for the bankrupt, nnd Mr Cottrell on behulf of two of the largest creditors, Messrs E. Keece and Kyfe. Mr Graham reported as follows : — "That the bankrupt has furnished a : detailed statement of twelve months' receipts I and expendituie, commencing with a sum of £359 borrowed from- Mr Fyfe. This gentleman is one of the supervisors, and he asks beyond this account a detailed statement of the transactions between the two brothers, John and Davi<!,whioh does not appear oirthe face of the account rendered. Mr John Scott claims £392; the account now filed exhibits only jE7OO as lent during 18C8. I make these renmrks, as I intend calling upon Mr John Scott to prove his account by vouchers and other documents." Mr Cottrell said he whs instructed to apply for leave to examine the bankrupt. The bankrupt was sworn, and in— reply to Mr Cotterell, deposed : I prepared- the statement of accounts that has been filed from receipts which I had in my possession and my bank-book. I have not accounted in this statement for moneys which I received previous to January; 1868, except sums harrowed before for purchasing ground and building, which I have been payiug off. 1 borrowed about £900 at different periods from Mrs Neilson. Tl;e whole of that money has been paid. The last instalments were paid in the beginning of 1868. Those payments appear in the account, paid by cheques. There wa9 one bill which I gave for £83 or £85 to the trustees of the Eiccarton estate, for some cattle which were purchased for Mrs Neilson and sent down to her ; also for some purchased by Mr John Murray, of the Lincoln Road, on her account. I wouldn't draw the distinction whether the cattle were brought by mo or by John Neilson. The : parties all knew for whom they were bought. The bill was honoured when it came to maturity. No bill of mine given to Mrs Neilson was ever dishonoured. I have seen my brother's account. The payments are correctly entered in that account. My brother came out here in the year 1863 He was here several months before he advnnced the first loan. In June, 1864, my brother owed me £8 10s, an advance which I had made at the Immigration Office, to bring him out. He didn't consider it a debt, nor did I consider that it was. I paid his hotel bill during the eight or ten days he was at the A 1 Hotel. I had £140 belonging to my brother in my possession at that time:" 1 had no farming transactions with mybrother. | I never knew of his ■ having rented j a farm. He is not farming now. He deals in horses, and lives at Kiveraleigh, on the Avon. John {Scott has his name in the lease of two grass paddocks. I became one of the lessees, as Mr Clarke wished t > have a resident of Christchurch connected with the. lease. My brother was in the habit of going to Dunedin and Hokitika with horses. I have no beneficial interest under any le.'ise, eitheratßiversleigh or elsewhere. I had stock on the farm before I failed, which I have accounted for to the trustee. It consisted of two cows, three ponies, and a borse. : Mr Graham said the bankrupt had only accounted to him for one pony and the horse. The Bankrupt : The two cows and two ponies were sold under a bill before I failed. I have got the bi]l lying at home, and I think my brother (the acceptor) explained to Mr Graham why he declined to lift it. Mi* Graham explained that the bankrupt's brother declined to meet the bill in question, because the bankrupt was indebted to him in a large amount. His Houor : I perceive that his brother has proved for £447. Mr Cottrell applied for an adjournment of the case. His Honor : On what grounds ? Mr Cottrell : As I am instructed, some part of this evidence may be refuted. His Honor asked if Mr Graham had any remark to make. Mr Graham said the supervisors objected that the statement of accounts didn't go back far enough. It went back a year only. His Honor ordered a further adjournment until the 6th May. RE JIKSHACH CLEMENT. This case was adjourned until the 6th May, as no statement of accounts had vet been filed.

RE CHARLES WOODHA9I. This case had been adjourned from time to time, in order that the bankrupt might make good to the estate a horse and cart (or their equivalent) which he had made over to his son. His Honor now asked the bankrupt if he had done as directed. The bankrupt said he couM no nothing. In reply to the Court, Mr Graham said it was between the filing and adjudication that the horse and cart was made away 'with. It was within two months of the order of adjudication. His Honor: When did you dispose of the horse and cart? ' '.-' r The Bankrupt: Five or six weeks before I was adjudicated a bankrupt. His Honor (at Mr Graham's request): Up to when had you the use of them ? The Bankrupt: Until I closed th.. premises. His Honor: It is quite clear thatlhave not been too severe with you in. saying that you made an undue and improper preference of your son over your other creditors. But there is no use bringing you up time after time. rifSfliinßte^ftiJSrder^Buspending your relief for two years. ' The bankrupt: If Woods' hadn't been so severe on me, L would have been in business again. They have been the means of ruining me. His Honor: sfour relief is suspended for two years, and you needn't come up again unless you are. brought up. . . • RE JAMES FERGUSON DOUGLAS. This case was adjourned until the 6ih May. HE ALEXANDER CHARLES MILLS. ■ ■ Mr Slater appeared to oppose on t>_ j half of the trustee, who resided at Tioiaru, V: The C.mrt expressed great dissatisfaction at the manner in which the bankrupt had kept his accounts. , " An order of. discharge was made, suspending relief for three months from date. ■■I'" . RE SHAW CROSSLAND. .. This case was further adjourned until the 6th May, as the bankrupt had not furnished the statement of accounts to the trustee, in sufficient time to enable him to make a report. RE CHARLES FREDERICK WORTH. The debtor being now .in attendance, his case was proceeded with. Mr Williams said fie wished to examine some witnesses."' "''' Williftm Vincent :. lam a member of the firm of Deacon and Vincent, brewers, creditors in Worth's estate. There was a kind of meeting of creditors at his own house, about March, 1868. He was asked about the property in Christchurch, which he had recently assigned for the benefit of his wife. He stated that it was mortgaged,, but that there was from £40 to £50 a-year coming in clear over and above the interest and other payments. I think there was a statement of his affairs laid on the table by the bankrupt. This statement did not include the property in question, but merely public-house debts. He gave no information about the property until he was asked. He did not furnish a satisfactory statement of his affairs, and we came away without doing anything at all. Nothing was said at that time as to the £40 or £60 going to pay off the creditors. - A short time afterwards, the bankrupt was summoned to the Resident Magistrate's Court by Messrs Walton .Warner and Co. He asked me to meet him at their office. He was not there at the appointed time, and I left, meeting him in the Btreet. He said that if Walton, Warner and Co. continued the summons, he should be obliged to go through the Court, but did not wish to do so. I told him that I thought Messrs Walton, Warner, and Co. would withdraw the summons if he had the property assigned to his wife made over for the benefit of his creditors. He said he would get it done, and that his wife was quite agreeable that it should be done. In consequence of this, Walton, Warner, and Co. wi.hdrew the summons. I am sure the bankrupt said that the property would produce to the creditors from £40 to £50 a-year. Cross-examined by Dr Foster :„ Mr Worth said that the property was bringing in £40 or £50 a-year clear of allexpenses. lam positive of that. I have not seen the document produced. lam not quite sure that it was not Mr Worth who told me about the property made over to his wife. Re-examined by Mr Williams: There were only three creditors at the meeting. They had been sitting there some time before we heard from him of the assignment to his wife. John Ponsford : I attended a meeting of Mr Worth's creditors on behalf of Messrs Walton.Warner & Co. I saw a Bheet of paper lying on the table, representing the amounts which the bankrupt owed and the amounts due to him. It made^o aUusion to property that had been made over by the bankrupt to his wife. After being there some time (as near as I can recollect, it was towards the end of tlie meeting — we had been there for two hours), Mr Vincent asked the bankrupt about the property in question, and it was then only that we got the information out of him. He said, to the best of my recollection, that it would produce £30 or £40 clear to the creditors, after paying all expenses. I heard before I went to the meeting that the bankrupt had settled the property on his wife. The bankrupt would not have got the credit he did if the firm didn't understand clearly that he had got that property in his own right. Mr Walton told me so. Cross-examined by Dr Foster: lam sure the paper attached to the document produced (which relates to the property) was not laid on the table. I did not see it, and I don't believe it was there. If it had been there, we should not have been obliged to interrogate the bankrupt about the property. Mr Vincent recalled: When the bankrupt first did business with us, he gave .us to understand that he had the property in question. It was mainly on that account that we gave him credit. I think that was about May or June, 1867. I^gSTSM ,-asa-— w-

Mr Williams said he had no other witnesses to call. '■ The bankrupt, sworn and examined by Dr Foster: I considered myself solvent in ;<>ctober, 1867. On the 14th of that month I executed the settlement on Mrs Worth. : I received £16 from Messrs vValton, Warner and Co. about that time. It was paid to ;me as trustee of Bay ley's estate, and was due to me for rent. Mr Williams said he had found out since last sitting day that this was correct. Examination continued: I am quite certain that the two papers produced were laid before the creditors at the meeting in question. In the course of general conversation, I put these figures down in pencil for their information. The property was expressly brought under their notice by me. The penciliug wa3 the result of the argument that occurred ; it was not done before the su'-jeet had been mentioned by some of my creditors. I had previously informed Mr Vincent respecting the property assigned to my wife I had also informed Mr Delaruare, a creditor. The Market Hotel briugs £250 a-year. It was £350 ; the reduction of £100 was from the Ist October, 1867. The leasehold in Kilmore Btreetr ; fe_fc%eß/.>£l2 Vj a-j"ear, and. the. freehold £15 more. Besides £ha.t v there is a leasehold cottage which I live in. The ground-rent of the .Market Hotel is £40 a-year ; £55 a-year, nett, is paid to the Building Society ; and £110 a-year is paid to Gee's trus'ees ; £20 a-year is paid for insurance ; and there is interest on mortgages, rates, &c. £5 lOs a-year is the whole profit coming cut of the property made over to my wife. My difficulties have arisen from ill-success at the HalfWay Accommodation House, on the West Goast Hoad. The business fell away. It was some three or four months after the fourth of October, 1867, that I was obliged to dishonour a bill. Cross-examined by Mr Williams: I accepted Messrs Deacon and Vincent's bill at three months for..aeß6, in May, 1867. I piid £50, and renewed the bill in August for £36 This "would be running while I made the property over to my wife. The renewal became due in November, after I executed the conveyance. When the renewal became due, I borrowed £13 from Mr Vincent to meet it The £71 is the balance of various money transactions that passed between Mr Walton (not of Walton, Warner and Co.) and myself. My wife gave a mortgage over the Market Hotel to Mr Walton, before he left for Australia. I signed the deed. The mortgage was given to Mr Walton in February, 1868, because he insisted On having security. Richard Walton, examine 1 by Mr Williams : I am a member of the firm of Walton, Warner, and. Co. We are creditors of the bankrupt. I recollect summoning Mr Worth to the Resident Magistrate's Court. We withdrew that summons on the undsrstan "ing that the property assigned to the wife should be made over to the creditors. With that view, I believe Mr Fereday was employed. Mr Worth was taken ill, and, after a long delay, he declined to have the] deed of re-conveyance carried out. Before j the summons was withdrawn, he told me that the property brought in £50 or £60 a-year, clear of expense. Cross-examined by Dr Foster : We gave the bankrupt credit on the representation that the property was held in his own right. ; Dr Foster then addressed the Court on hehalf of the bankrupt. . . Mr Williams opposed the application for the final discharge, on the ground that being insolvent at the time, the bankrupt had fraudulently made over the property in question to 'his wife. Whether that deed was fraudulent or not, the whole conduct of the bankrupt was such as to disentitle him to the relief of the Court. His Honor said he would look over the evidence, and give his decision on a future day— perhaps next d iy, in Chambers. The Court then adjourned.