SUPREME COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 265, 8 November 1937, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

IN BANKRUPTCY MOTIONS FOR DISCHARGE Motions for discharge in bankruptcy were granted at the Supreme Court on Saturday morning by His Honour, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, to Walter Edwin Gibbons (Mr B. C. Haggitt), Lewis Arthur Eastman (Mr L. F. Baird), James Lorn (Mr B. C. Haggitt). The discharge of Samuel John Brown was opposed by Mr N. C. Armstrong on behalf of J. E. S. Mowat and Co., and the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Co. Counsel stated that prior to his ! bankruptcy bankrupt transferred certain money to stock on the farm which belonged to his wife. His Honour: Have you taken no steps in the matter? Mr Armstrong replied that no action was taken at the time. His Honour: This matter is five years old. Mr Armstrong: I appreciate that, Your Honour. His Honour: Were no steps taken for a public examination? Bankrupt stated that he was now on a leasehold farm at Foxton run by his wife, who owned the stock and chattels. He received no wages and asked if he could get work on a farm owing to lack of labour, he replied that he could. Witness ran a transport business at Wanganui before he purchased a farm at Tayforth. The farm was run by his wife. He paid £l2B on account of that farm and £9O for interest during the year it was running. His wife did all the transaGtions in regard to the farm. His Honour asked whether notice had been given to the bankrupt of this examination. Counsel said he was only instructed in the case two days ago and notified bankrupt’s solicitor. The Official Assignee said that no complaint had been made to him by these creditors and he was satisfied at the time of the examination. His Honour said he did not think it fair for creditors to wait for five years and then come forward to oppose without giving any indication to bankrupt or his solicitor of the' grounds. Mr Armstrong said he would be content to rely on lhe minutes taken by the Official Assignee. Bankrupt stated that he received nothing from his wife’s farm in the, way of profits or wages. Counsel stated that bankrupt paid £2BB into the farm out of his trading account and had nothing out or it in wages or profits. He sold his business and went to work on the farm. The wife purported to have paid him £l5l 15s 8d back again. This left £l2B 12s Id, which he had put into the property. His Honour: Do you say he con—mitted any offences under the Act? “No, sir; only misconduct.” His Honour: Do you suggest that anything could be recovered from the wife? “Yes, sir.” “Then why did you not take proceedings?” “I don’t know why they were not taken.” His Honour: Neither do I. Counsel contended that the farm was not run by the wife, but as a partnership. He had a capital of £192 and she had £BB in the farm. He went bankrupt and the wife retained the stock. His Honour: There might have been some remedy against the wife, but the creditors did not take it. Counsel: I appreciate that should have been done, sir. His Honour said he saw no reason for not granting the discharge, which (her DIVORCE PETITIONS DECREES GRANTED His Honour, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, granted decrees in the following divorce petitions at the Supreme Court on Saturday:—

Alice Elizabeth Small (Mr B. C. Haggitt) v. Eric A. Small, on the grounds of adultery. E. T. Tobrum (Mr Baird) v. T. K. Tobrum, on the grounds of desertion. Leslie Hagley (Mr Ralph Brown) v. Dorcas May Hagley, on the grounds cf adultery.