IN CHAMBERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5804, 23 February 1897, Page 3

IN CHAMBERS.

Tuesday, Feb. 23. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) RE CHARLES PRICE, DECEASED. Mr Maude obtained an order for letters of administration herein. FERGUSON V. LONARGAN. Mr Cresswell obtained an order for discovery herein. PROBATES. His Honor granted probate of the wills of Agnes Boyd Dalziel, deceased (Mr Helinoro), and Francis Smith Carew, deceased (Mr Maude). RE MICHAEIi O'BRIEN. Mr Slater obtained an order confirming the report of the Registrar herein. liE WILLIAM WHITJJSIDES. Mr W. B. Cowlishaw appeared in support of ci petition for William Whitesides to be declared a bankrupt. There was no appearance of the debtor. The petitioning creditor, Albert Thomas Rollitt, deposed that the debt owing to him wns unpaid. He had received no part of it, and held no security. His Honor made the order. RE J. MAITLAND JONES. Mr Bishop applied for the bankrupt's discharge. Mr Cresswell said that he had been just instructed, on behalf of Mr Scott, solicitor, of Christchurch, on whose petition the debtor had been adjudicated bankrupt, to oppose the application. He had not given notice of the opposition to the bankrupt's solicitor. Mr Scott was a proved creditor for ,£56. Subsection 2of Section 126 of the Bankruptcy Act provided that a proved creditor might oppose without giving notice to the bankrupt. The opposition Avas on the ground that the bankrupt showed debts amounting to .£327, and assets amounting to .£269, an/1 that the Assignee had been able to obtain nothingthere wei-e really no assets. Another ground was that the bankrupt had made no effort to pay the petitioning creditor's cost of petitioning. His Honor said he did not see that was a ground for opposing the discharge. The opposition was practically an application for costs. Mr Cresswell said that it was. His Honor said that then that was what Mr Bishop had to meet. Mr Bishop said that the bankrupt had been out of employment until recently, and had not been able to pay the costs. His Honor asked if any oiler had been madeito pay the costs. Mr Cresswell said that the bankrupt's solicitors had been approached, and he had made an offer to pay £5, but the creditor did not consider that sufficient. His Honor said that he did. The bankrupt had been practically suspended for three years, as it was that time since the bankruptcy. The discharge would be "■ranted on payment of .£5 towards the petitioning creditor's costs. RE W. N. CLAUSEN.% Mr Eolleston applied for the bankrupt's discharge. There was no opposition, and his Honor granted an order of discharge. RE DENNIS k'GRATH. Mr Cresswell, for the Official Assignee, appeared in support of a motion to set aside an assignment of chattels made by the bankrupt. Mr Hall appeared on behalf of Mrs M'Grath to oppose the application. Mr Cresswell said that the deed sought to be sot aside had been made by bankrupt on May 25, 1896, conveying to his wife a house and land, and furniture in the house, in Tasinan Street, Wellington. It was contended that the deed was void under the Bankruptcy Act and also under the statute of Elizabeth. He (Mr Cresswell) desired to abandon one ground of application — that set out in Clause 4. The bankrupt for some years had been a contractor, carrying on business mostly, in the North Island. During that time he had made payments to his wife amounting to about .£I3OO, and had received payments from her amounting to .£I2OO. In the middle of August, 1895, he had taken a contract under the Wai-makariri-Ashley Water-supply Board. For some reason he took to drink, got into bad company, and in April, 1896, was committed for trial for theft. He did not appear for trial, and his recognizances were forfeited. On July 31, 1896, ho was adindicated bankrupt on a creditors' petition. His debts were about .£6CO, and the assets recovered only amounted to .£B. He had a house and land in Wellington, but the creditors did not know of it. On April 25, 1896, he made this over to his wife. It was submitted that the assignment was void, as it had not been made in good faith nor for valuable consideration. It had not been made in good faith if Mrs M'Grath knew of. the bankrupt's position. It had not been given for valuable consideration, as the consideration stated in the deed, a debt of .£SOO due by the bsvukruot to his wife, did not exist. The Official Assignee contended that the payments by the bankrupt to his wife were not gifts, but payments to be held in trust for liim. If they were gifts, then the payments by her to him must be gifts also. Even if the payments by him to her were gifts, they were void, he submitted, under the statute of Elizabeth, as they had been virtually made with intent to defraud the creditors, as the man was a contractor, and paid his capital to his wife, leaving his creditors to take their chance. Mr Cresswell called Graham Lord Greenwood, Official Assignee, who stated that the proved debts were .£545, and the assets rather over £8. Mr Hall remarked that the bankrupt, who had been drinking, was not aware of his financial position when he made the assignment. Mrs M'Grath (to Mr Cresswell) deposed that she had married the bankrupt about twelve yeai-3 ago. She had no money of her own then, and any money she possessed she had acquired through her husband. There were no children. Her husband had been in the habtf; of giving her sums of money for some y&ars past. The first sum she got as appeared from the bank-book was .£7O in January, 1893. The next was .£l5O on May 23, 1893. She also received .£237 in June, 1894; .£l4O on April 17, 1894, and .£2OO on April 29, 1894. On August 26, 1895, she received .£25 interest on her money on deposit in the bank. She also paid .£SOO which she had received from her husband at the time into the savings bank at Te Aro on August 17, 1894. This

money was received about that-time. She asked her husband wh.it sho -was to do with the <£150 on May 215, 180!], aud he said she could do whatshelikcd with it. She supposed the other money was paid on the same terms. Nothing was said about it. She kept no accounts relating to the money. All the time her husband was engaged on contract work or looking out for contracts. She paid money to her husband at various times. On Oct. 2, 1893, she sent him .£IOO through the bank in consequence of a letter from him applying for the amount. On Nov. 5, 1594, she gave .£llO to her husband, who was then in Wellington. On Jan. 12, 1895, she paid .£IOO into his account at the bank at Te Aro, in response to a letter from him telling her that he had a contract in hand, that the Board had made no progress payment, and that he wanted the money. In September, 1895, she sent .£3OO to him at Oxford, in pursuance of an apx>lication by letter. About Christmast 1895, sho gave a guarantee to the Banl/ of New "Zealand for .£2OO, in consequence of a letter from her husband, who said he wanted the money to pay his- men on a contract. In April, 1876, she gave a further guarantee for .£IOO, in consequence of a telegram from her husband, stating that he wanted the money as the Board had made no progross payment. Later on she received a further telegram asking for a guarantee of .£2OO, and she wrote to him to come home and give her security before she gave the guarantee. In order to bring him home ste telegraphed to him that she was ill. She wished him to give security over the house before sho gave the guarantee. He had written to her that everything was right, but she felt uneasy about the contract. Ho telegraphed that he would come by, next boat, but did not. On April 20 she gave the guarantee for .£2OO, as she was afraid he might be inconvenienced in the contract for want of the money. He came home on April 24, 1896, and signed the deed next day, Before the conveyance he denied that he was losing money on contracts. He told her that he had been committed for trial. She first resolved to ask for security when she received the telegram. She had written to him for security before she heard of the criminal charge. The value of the house, land and furniture was about .£3BO. She knew at the time that that was all the property he had. The value stated in the deed was .£4OO, and the debt secured was stated at .£BOO, because she had sent .£BOO to Oxford. The moneys paid by her before he took up the Oxford contract were not gifts to him ; she had lent them to him. She did not know exactly what the deed of conveyance contained, and had not been present when it was signed. Her husband told her that he had signed the deed of conveyance, and that the consideration was ,£BOO, but he did not give her any other particulars. She did not know at the time that persons had claims against her husband under the contract. She only learned that when she came to Christchurch. She made no inquiries from others than her husband to ascertain if there were any creditors. To Mr Hall : Her husband had previously had larger contracts than the Oxford one. The witness was further crossexamined at considerable length.