Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

TUBBDAY, MABOH 28. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnßton.) IN CHAMBEES.

DBBTOBS* AND CBBDITOBS 1 ACT.

He Butler Hill Williams :— Mr Stringer applied for an order directing the Bank of New Zealand to pay over to A. F. De Veaux, the trustee in the estate herein, the sum of £160, being the amount of a certain draft on the said Bank, in favour of tho debtor.

Mr Garrick appeared for the Bank, and submitted that his Honor had no jurisdiction Mr M'Connel appeared for Mrs Williams, the wife of the bankrupt. Mr Stringer explained that the affidavit of the trustee was to the effect that tho Bank had refuted to honour a draft in favour of the bankrupt in consequence of reoeiving notice from Mrs Williams to hold it for her benefit. He submitted that though the draft had arrived after bankruptcy, the trustee was entitled to it.

Mr Garrick submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction. The Bank desired not to be made liable, and if his Honor directed that the Bank should pay, the Bank would do so. The bankruptcy took place on Jan. 19, and the draft from the bankrupt's father was dated London, Jan. 12, but did not reach Christchurcn till after the bankruptcy. It was a mere donation from the father.

His Honor thought that tho donor might have revoked the gift at any time.

Mr Stringer submitted that tho draft was payable on demand, and demand had been made.

His Honor said it was not a question of whether the bankrupt was entitled to recover. That was a question to be settled by action. His impression was that the debtor had no claim by the present course If it had been given to tho debtor as a cheque after bankruptcy he might cash it, but this draft had not eomo under his control. There appeared to bo no dispute as to facts, and it might be desirable to have the case determined on an action.

Mr M'Connel submitted that the wife was entitled to a portion of the money because the letter enclosing the draft mentioned that £60 was intended for the maintenance of tho bankrupt, herself and tho children, for March, April, and May. His Honor held that tho wife had no legal status.

Mr Qarrick submitted that it was purely a mutter of statute, and it was for the Court to construe the meaning of the statute The question was whether tho sum of £100, a gift to tho son, and £60 " ear marked " for the maintenance of the wifo and family was to go to the trustee.

His Honor agreed with Mr Garrick, but questioned tho propriety of such a point being argued before n Judge in Chambers. The "ear-marking" did not affect the question. Mr Stringer submitted that under section 74 of tho Act, his Honor had power to order the Bank to pay the Trustee. His Honor said the question was whether tho property vested in tho bankrupt or not. Tho mutter was one upon which ho had very groat doubt, and should not bo soitlod offhand. There was, ho thought, material for a spcoial case. Was tho i rusteo preparod to give the Bank an indemnity ?

Mr Stringer said the Trußtee was. Mr Oarrick thought, that if his Honor would tronoun'-n an opinion. \Tr Strin^r and !k" -•■mi ;1 probuiiiy arrange thu matter.

11 vi Honor was nob prepared to pronounoo

an opinion. He doubted very much, whether the .Bank had any right to dispute payment. He would take time to consider his decision.

LAW PBACTITIONEBS* ACT.

Re Thomas and Bruges — Beturn to Judge's summons of March 23.

Mr Bruges consented to the order applied for by Mr M'Connel.

BE WILLIAM LBB, THE YOUNGEB, DECEASED. Mr Wilding applied for letters of administration to William Lee, and that sureties be dispensed with.

His Honor made the order as prayed. BB ABBITBATION CASE— TUDBALL AND INGLE.

Beturn to rule nisi of March 24. Mr Ingle appeared to show cause why he should not be attached, and asked for time to piy £90 odd, the amonnt of the award, as he was not now able to do so.

Mr Joynt, who appeared for Mr Tudball, read an affidavit to the effect that Ingle had Bold for £70, bF auction, plant which had belonged to the partnership. The sale was only colourable, with the view of defeating the claim of Tudball.

Mr Ingle Assured his Honor that the sale was bona fide, and he had applied tho money to pay off another debt.

Mr Joynt said that Mr Ingle was at that time under the award, and had avowed his intention not to pay a cent to Mr Tudball.

His Honor, no cause being Bhown, made the rule absolute, and ordered attachment to issue, vfith oosts.

EC ARCHIBALD WILSON, DECBASBD.

Mr Blater applied for an erder for letters of administration to Mary Sinclair Wilson, and for the approval of John Stevenson and John Bobertson as sureties. His Honor granted the order as prayed.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS18820328.2.14

Bibliographic details

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4345, 28 March 1882, Page 3

Word Count
843

SUPREME COURT. Star (Christchurch), Issue 4345, 28 March 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Star (Christchurch), Issue 4345, 28 March 1882, Page 3