The Akaroa Mail. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER, 11.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 120, 11 September 1877, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER, 11.

Mr Geohoe Jones, the proprietor of a newspaper, published at Oamarn, has suddeuly found himself the hero of the hour, the cynosure of all eyes. Ordered to attend at the. bar of the House of Representatives for a breach of privilege ill publishing an alleged libel on Her Majesty's Attorney-General, who is a member of the House, Mr Jones had presented to him a sum of money, which Mr Speaker had considerately forwarded to him to bear his charges of travel. Arrived in Wellington, he was treated with the consideration shewn only to state prisoners ; comfortable apartments were assigned him, and he received daily a handsome allowance for his maintenance. One would have thought that all this kindness would have softened the heart of the obdurate Joues. But no, when

actually before the bar, unawed by the august presence in which he found himself, undeterred by Mr Speaker s withering , frown, Jones actually became contumacious. Insead of on bended knee, and, in accents, " low and sweet," humbly acknowledging his fault and imploring pardon, he justified'himself, declared that what he had published he believed to be true, and that he had published it because he conscientiously believed it to be his duty to do so. Conscience indeed! What right has Mr Jones to a conscience, or if he has one, how blind he is to his own interests to be guided by its dictates. Lucky for him that he lives in this humane age, had he existed in the good old days, a short shrift and the halter, or the keen axe would have been his fate, and the world would have heard no more either of Mr George Jones. The House did not know what to do with the hardened impenitent sinner, and so they ordered him to be discharged, but at the same time, unwilling that he should go quite scott free, the House in its wisdom directed Her Majesty's AttorneyGeneral to prosecute Jones for libel on a member of the House, and this the Attorney-General has commenced to do. Thus this matter stands at present. We regret that the House did not content itself with simph ordering Mr Jones to be discharged. It would have been graceful to do so. We do not however so much blame the House as we do Ministers in this matter. If they had willed it their majority would have cairied the simple motion for discharge, and MiGeorge Jones would have gone to his home, we trust a wiser man, instead of being as he is now, exalted almost to the dignity of a martyr in the cause of freedom, and looked upon as a persecuted man suffering for conscience sake. Wo are somewhat surprised too at the course taken by the Ministers, as they are virtually if not actually the defendants in another libel case, we mean the case of Russell v. the Waka Maori. A strange position truly, prosecutors in one libel case and defendants in another. If Jones be convicted on the criminal information, lie will have to pay the fine imposed and to suffer imprisonment. Happy Ministers ; unfortunate Jones ! When individuals are unable to meet their engagements with their creditors, and, accordingly, elect to file their schedules, or, as the profanum vulc/us term it, go in for a process of " whitewashing," it is required that due notice of such bankruptcy shall be at once given to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, who publicly notifies the same, and appoints a day of meeting for the; creditors. Now, the Bankruptcy Act provides in such cases that this meeting shall be held " at such time and place as may be convenient," one of those elegant specimens of legal phraseology which it is optional on the part of the creditor and Registrar respectively to " read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest," with directly opposite applications. It may happen occasionally that what is " convenient" to the creditors may also suit- the Registrar, but in the majority of instances, we opine their tastes will differ, when, as the Registrar has the first say in the matter, and human nature is lamentably frail and selfish, it is more than probable that official will suit his own "convenience" before that of the creditors. A case in point has come under our notice here, in the matter of the appointment of the first meeting of creditors in the estate of a gentleman belonging to this town, who recently found " the burden (of his debts) was greater than he could bear," and who, therefore, has notified himself a bankrupt. This gentleman is a resident in Akaroa —has been so, in fact, for many years—and his property is situate in that place and district, hence, it may very justly be inferred that the majority of his creditors will be found, and the greater part of his assets realised in the same locality ; yet, mirabile dicta, the meeting of the said creditors haa been appointed to be held in Christchurch, distant some fifty odd vales, considerable loss of time and expense being thereby entailed on all those who have to attend ! We can readily understand whose " convenience" has been consulted in this instance. We question, however, the legality of the Registrar's action in the matter of this appointment. In the " Rules under the Debtors and Creditors Act 187(1," and under the head of "meetings," section 1, we find the following : " Where the debtor resides within ten miles of the Court-house for the district in ivliich he resides or carries on business, then such meeting shall be held at the Court-house, unless the Judge of the Court shall otherwise order." This, we think, clearly shows that the intention of the Act is, except in extraordinary cases, to study the convenience of the creditors, not of the Registrar, while, at the same time, it spwially lays down a rule as to the place of meeting according to a certain fixed radius of distance, the Judge of the Court, that is, the Supreme Court, having the power to order otherwise in exceptional instances. Not only this, but section 2 goes on to sa y : —" Where the debtor resides more than ten miles from the Court-house, then the meeting shall be at such other convenient place within the district as the Registrar mVy fix," clearly proving, again, that the convenience of creditors is to be consulted. There is, however, a beautiful ambiguity about the term " Court-house ;" but the words " in the district," as applied to the case in point, must mean the R. M. Courthouse, there being no other Court-house in this district. The 25th clanse under the same head-

ing states : " Subject to the Act and these rules, any meeting may be adjourned from time to time, but in no case shall a meeting be held elsewhere than at the prescribed place, unless by leave of the Court, or a,' Judge." Upon this clause, more especially, we found our opinion that the Registrar has acted illegally in appointing the meeting, outside this district, and at a place otherwise than the Court-house of this district. It is monstrous that an official who receives a salary for doing certain duties, should, merely to gratifiy a whim, shirk the same, and thereby cause infinite trouble, great loss of time, and an aggravation, of expense to a number of private individuals, who have already suffered sufficiently by the insolvency. If our reading of the Act is correct, then the Registrar is greatly to blame for his action ; if incorrect, then, presuming the Registrar to be in the right, the Act requires amendment, for the injustice to outlying districts is patent to all, and we trust those who are concerned in the present case, will not tamely suffer the matter to rest here, but strenuously exert themselves to obtain some alteiation.