IN BANKRUPTCY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8312, 15 December 1906, Page 5

IN BANKRUPTCY.

At the Masterton Magistrate's Court, yesteiday afternoon, Mr E. EansoD, Registrar of the District Court, delivered bia reserved judgment iu the case in which E. 11. Saunders petitioned >:o have George Christian L. Jensen adjudioatea a bankrupt. In delivericg judgment the Registrar, Mr K. Rawson, dealt with the technical objections, raised ty Mr 0. A. Pqwnall, solicitor for the debtor fleet and said:—With referenoe to the first objection, viz., that the petitioning creditor's signature does not appear to have been witnessed by a Registrar Justice of the Peace or solioitor I have nothing ■ further to add to what 1 said at the hearing. I consider thai, as I pointed out ihen, the matter is concluded by the case of iu re Harrison, XXIII., N.Z.L.P., P. 864, and in re a debtor, 86 Ll\, p. 688. At the bearing I got the petitioner to acknowledge his signature before me as Clerk of the Dißtrict Court," whioh designation is included in the term "Registrar," as deHned by seotion 3 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1892. The seooud objection is that the verifying affidavit is not in order inasmuch as it was not signed before a solioitor or uffioer of the Court; that the only exemption allowed is contained in S.O. Rule 187, and that there is no similar provision in the Bankruptcy Act, or the District Court, Act; that in any ca9e there was a qualified solioitor within five miles, and J that although he was acting for the petitioning creditor, he could have"taken the affidavit, because the prohibition in S.O. Rule 188 only applies to au aotion or proceedings in the nature of an aotion, and that these proceedings are not proceedings in the nature of an action. 1 must oveaule this objection also. With regard to the, question whether there was a qualified solioitor resident within five miles, I think 3ule 188 applies Blso. There is nothing in the rule, it appears to me, to Bapport the contention that the pro ceedings must be in the nature of an aotion. apart from this rule it is questionable whether it is not improper for the solioitor to the party to take the affidavit. The third objection is that the jurat doea not show by whom the affidavit was sworn. I do not think there is anything in this oontention either. Although Saunders was "not asked whether he bad sworn to the affidavit, it is evident from the whole document that he did do so. Although I do not think it neoassary 1 shall order under the authority of seotion 166 that tho jurat be re-" written in the following form:— "Sworn in by the above named Edward Heat Sauuderd," eto. Finally it is objected that the petition is bad, because it does not show jurisdiction on the faco of it, viz., where the deotor resided for the three months prior to the filing of the petition. Seotion 3, s.s. 3 (a) provides the text for the seleotion of the court in whioh to file the petition. But seotion 4 provides that "nothing in this section shall invalidate a proceeding by reason of its being taken in a wrong Court." Again by section 36 the petition "shall be in or to the effect of the form in the seoond schedule, and this form does not require the fact referred to tn <t.B. 3 (a) to be in sorted." The petition in this case follows the form provided by the Act. The evidence establishes the neoessary condition, and in any case I do not think it is a necessary part of the petition. With regard to the two acts of bankruptcy alleged in the* petitions which allow the wording of seotion 29, s.s i, of The Bankruptcy Act, 1892, X am satisfied from the evidence tbat.the creditors have been delayed; but though this is not essential, 1 have to decide further whether the debtor in departing or absenting himself in the manner alleged had at the time the intention of, defeating or delaying his creditors. Ibe question of intent is a ' question of fact, to be decided upon all the circumstances. A great number of cases have been deoided upon the question of what amounts to evidence of snob an intent. It' is a general principle of law that a man is taken to intend what is the necessary or natural consequences of b)s aots, and, in many oases, the circumstances of the case have been held to raise such a presumption that the debtor intended to defeat or delay;hia creditors. 1 think the circumstances as gathered from the evidence are such as to justify me in coming to the conclusion that the debtor had such an intent as is alleged. He admits that he left Featherstcn owing some £200; that he had heard that Toogood and Kiroaldie were going to sue him; that he had only a few pounds in bis pooket; that he didn't make bis departure public "because there was a summons waiting for him from Wellington." He also says that he partly left home beoaase of a quarrel with his wife. On this point, 1 may say, it has been laid down that where a trader departs from his dwellingbouse on account of domestic dissensions, if he makes no arrangements for carrying on bis business in his absence, and he foresees that as a necessary eunsequence, bis establishment must be broken up and bis creditors must be delayed, which events accordingly happen, he tbeteby commits an act of bankruptcy. It also "struck b'im a summons might bo issued against him for debt," and that he had "plenty of work promised him by his former employer in the Featberston district." In addition to these admitted facts 'the whole surrounding circumstances (apart from the circumstance I shall refer to immediately) as gathered from the evidence satisfies my mind that the debtor had the intent to defeat or delay as alleged. The circumstance I alluded to above is what occurred when Saunders and Vincent called at Berkahn'a house. I am iuclined to believe from the evidence that Saunders and Vihoenfc did see Jensen at the window, as they have stated, and that'Jensen saw them. This being so the acts of Mrs Jensen and Berkahn in denying Jensen must be taken to have been authorised by Jensen,' and are evidence. Of this intent to defeat or delay bis creditors on the ground that they are part of the' res gestae regarding, it not the departing from his dwell ing bouse, at any Jrate, the absent-

Jag himself therefrom., I am satisfied thus the two acts of bankruptcy alleged in the petition have been committed, and of the other matters of which by section 41 I am required to be satisfied, and I adjudge the debtor, George Christian Lendt Jeasen, a bankrupt. Mr B. J. Dolaa (instructed by Mr J. W. Card) appeared for the petitioning creditor, and Mr 0. A. Pownall for the debtor.