DISTRICT COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2258, 19 October 1889, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHBURTON— FBIDAY. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) IN BANKRUPTCY In re E. W, Osbobnb. Motion ;o set aside a bill of na'c— Mr Gayglll apperred for the Dspotv Official Assignee, and Mr McConnol), the hoidar of Iba bill of Bsle, appeared on hla own behalf. This was a rootion to eet arlde a bili of tale given by ba-krupt «o Rob rt MoGonnoil, the r -atone, sb statod, baing that the consider tlon for the bill *»a not get forth thereto a« rrqnlmd by the Chattels Securities Ae>, 1880, and Its amendments ; that the stook, ohtttcls and premises assigned were not correctly, tialy and speolfically described as required by the Chattels Securities Act, 1880, and Iti amendments ; and that the bill of nale and mortgage of stock was nude and givoc •nbj* ot to b def e»eanoe notcontalned In the body (hereof nor written thereon The Ooart was also asked to c»1l upon Mr MoGonnell to labmlt a foil statement of accounts of his transactions with the bankrupt. Mr McDonnell expressed his reaiiness to supply the statement of accounts asked for. E. W. O*borne was oilted and his exMDlnatlon lasted some four hoars. la answer to qaestlons by Mr O&yglll he detailed his transactions with the firm of Mcdnnell and Douglas, it appeared from l>ls statements that In Jaly, 1887, Mr McOonnell took a 3 debts owing by! Ojboruo to a Finance Company and the j B»nk,abUof sale to the amount of £710 bet g given as neourlty. Two promissory notes of the value of £525 and £360- respectively were alto given, and Osborue also gave an agrloul:nr»UUn and a wool Hen to McOonnell. The £710 inoludsd £75 for costs »nd £43 odd for eommlieioo. The witness was sabjeoted to a lengthy and searohing oross-axsminatlon at the hands of Mr McConnell. Among other things It was elicited that at the tlma the bill of sale was drawn up there were horses grtz'ng ou the plaoe that were not witness' property. Did not tell Mr MoOon■ell tbat this was so. O. H. Parker came down nnd locked over tbo securities. Told Parker that tbe horses were not his, but Parker said that It would be all tight, and they were put In. His Honor asked who Parker wan, and was told that he w«s at present m gaol. His Honor -rejoined that gaol was the proper place for him If that was the sort of advice be gave. Parker was also referred to In connection with a otieqae he bad obtained from Oiboroa for £12 10s on the understanding that the amount Wts to be paid In by Parker so that Osborne'a obeqne sbcuH be honored when presented. Tbe amount wts not paid In and tbe cbrqae w»a dishonored, referred to drawer and had to be paid by Mr MeConnell lot bsokrnpt. Later on It appeared that the witness had given a lltn to Mr McCoßnell over the crop of oats on 100 sores of land, whloh land witness had never been In possession of. He b»d assured Ms McOonnell that he was to get a lease of tbe land from Mr Drummond. Did oot get tbe land, bat did not tell Ms MoOonnell till tome time after the lien was given that Mr Drummond had refused to give the land. At the conclusion of Osborno's evidence MtMoO.nneU asked that the motion be dismissed. He argaed that no case had been made out. Mr Gayglll submitted tbat a prim* fame ease bad been made out. Tie evidenoe showed that tbe consideration had not been correctly stated, that tome chattels were net deiorlbed as the law required, and that tbe promissory notes and other securities taken by Mr McOounell were defeasances of tbe bill of rale and should either have been Bet out or endcraed thereon. Mr MoOoonoll replied tbat he received the bills as collateral eeonrlty, tbat they were In no wise a defeaianoe of tbe bill of ■ale, and tbtt as one of tbe notes had been received by him after the execution of tha Bill It could not be endorsed thereon. > Authorities were cited. His Honor said tbat it appeared that the irst bill of sale and the other eeourltles were defeasances. There was oertslnly a me to answer. The Court rose at 5 p.m. till 11 a.m. to-day when Mr McOonnell will give avldtcoe,