SUPREME COURT.—In Bankruptcy.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 422, 18 May 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—In Bankruptcy.

THUBSDAY, MAY 18.

[Before His Honor Sir Gk A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.] His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 11 o'clock; Re John Paimeb Lennabd. —Mr. Brock appeared for the bankrupt.—The bankrupt is a cattle dealer. The final statement showed that the liabilities amounted to £270 ; assets, £55 ; deficiency, £155 15s. Be Neied BiiACK.— Deed of Aebange-,0 ment. —Mr. Ritchie said all the requirement? V of the Act had been complied with. Th I deed had been filed on the 18th of Februar t] and notice gazetted on the following df I A majority in number and value of the c" a ditors had executed the deed. —His Hf or d made an order declaring a complete execi»on v of the deed. 3 Re James Haenett Pike. —In tbi/case \ the appointment of the Provisional Trweo as f creditors' trustee was confirmed. j Be William Swintok Laurie.— ft- Hes- -, keth for the bankrupt j Mr. MacCoi-iic.k fo. r \ the opposing creditor. The follow^ addi- c tional evidence was taken in this c je: J°nn c Abbot, recalled and further examird by Mr. , MacCormick: I had a perfect jghfc as be- ; tween myself and Laurie to disc*^ bill for £238. There was no such understanding ( in ' respect of this bill 'as t-'ero was in . regard to «ie bill for £500. The , note for £1000 was discounted b7 the bfl"^ on the understating that Mr. Ijju.rie should deposit the iiortgage as collateral security. I offered no inducements to Mr. Laurie in regard to the Bridgewater property (the mill). Mr. Maobatte came to me, T believe, on behalf of Laurie, and asked me to entertain it. The.first arrangement was that Laurie should take a mortgage. It was Foot's property, and I gave Laurie a cheque for £1000 i to effect the mortgage. The purchase is a | second matter altogether. About the year 1869 the mill was let by Foot to a person named Treweala. This was subsequent to the mortgage, and Laurie was thwarted in gome respects, as he could not get sufficient flax. [The witness explained at considerable length the circumstances under whiph the purchase of the mill was completed j1 It was to enable I Laurie to more effectual work the pla?e aud | complete the purchase iuat I assisted him, for I afterwards stood in a tforae position than if I had been mortgaged I have no written instrument signed by the bankrupt i»i relation to this matter. It is a fact that I offered shares in the mill concern to certain parties. There *\w coal on the estate, in the benriit arising from the development o- which I was to participate. I therefore offered to Meyers, Potter, and Smith share*; not as if I were in possession of any shti'L'S, but making the offer to two or three persons in order that the coal mine might be o'eveloped. Mr. Hill gave me up tho note for £HK). They had no lien upon it. He debited me with it. It was debited to my awnimf;. —His Honor: I presume the meaning is that lie could notcieuiL it io my account and keep it. —The witness : It was not given to me to induce me to oppose Laurie. Decidedly not. It was debited to my account in July, 1870, and they could not compound upon it, being previously debited.—By Mr. He.-keth: I believe my account was overdrawn then. I can't explain why. Although the note was due on the 11th, it wus not debited until the 18th. I claimed the bill as a right. I did not receive it as a favour. All bills like the one debited I believe I have not got. I have Potter's. It was not given me to prove in Laurie's estate. Something about opposing in Laurie's case was named to mo by Mr. Hill.—Mr. Hesketh: Now, Mr. Abbot, you cleared this matter distinctly last Court-day.—Witness : I know what I said. — Mr. Hesketh : How came you to say then tha last day, " I might have told people that I would opposo Luurie because I promised Mr. Hill to do so, and I got the £100 bill <o do it." I got £8 for discounting the £238 I got £12 10s on the £500. It was optional, whether I discounted them. Laurie came to me for assistance. I promised Laurie I would discount the bill for £500. I kept my promise. I got commission on it.—Mr. Husketh : Why were you to discount tho one and not the other ?—Witness : I believe in tho liberty of the subject, and may do in one case what I would not do in another. I made a promise, but not an agreement. I never promised not to part with it. I promised not to discount. — Mr. Heaketh : You said last day that the Bank of New South Wales would hold the parties responsible whose names were to the bills. You gave Mr. Laurie's bill | to the Bank, and'he is liable upon it.—■ | Witness : I expressed an opinion. I did net; state a fact. My name was oiv-tbie bill also. I hadton^y I.oQ&lisA£ Drowns.—Mr. Hesketh : s"ut you got a good -asset for £500, in exchange.—His Honor : Mr. Abbot is looking to the money he actually had to pay. Does not the whole of £his case show that partieß will enter into engagements and transactions which lead into inextricable confusion, and finally lead to the bankruptcy of the whole set ?—Mr. Heskoth : It shows that cross bills of this kind should not be given. Laurie's case is this: He gives a bill to Abbot for acknowledgment of a debt —Abbot not to part with it. When Abbot gave this bill to the Bank he became doubly liable, and consequently could not go on. He said, I will meet one of these bills, but if you hold meliabloonthe two I cannot go on. Abbot had already I stated that he. gave Laurie's hill, to the bank, and he has given his opinion that tho Bank of New South Wales would hold the names to the bills responsible. Mr. Laurie was one of them. In this lay the essence of the transaction and the inability of Laurie to go on, in consequence of which he came before the Court for relief.—Witness : I have been in banking establishments. I went to Laurie and asked him for Smith's bill for one he had given to me. That was done for a change of discount. Precisely.— Mr. MacCormick : To keep the thing going.— A witness : On the 29th of January, 1870, I gave S. H. Smith a cheque for £750, a bill for £454 155., a bill for £545 55., all which bills I met, making a to:al of £1750 in bills and cash, and I charged him £49 16s. 4d. Smith gave me in return a bill for £350, a bill for £450 10s. 6d., a bill for £39S 4s. 6d.,. a bill for £545 S S . 5d., and a bill for £49 16s. 4d., the last being the only one met. Laurie had. a bill drawn by Smith in my. favor. That bill was as good as cash. He might have passed it away.—His Honor : What has this to do with the subject matter under enquiry ? —Mr. Hesketh ;It is really the most impu-

dent thiniW could be hejrd The.witness " B nvsTinurS^ a bill in Abbot's faVC*, ana £ endorsedU^ot, which he says was as good ascash adiat Laurie could get money upon ft and «i/away « without recourse." Abbot could% »eet them > aud lie goes .tO aUf- e ?°? Jewd, and says Laurie perpetuates his Klip. One thing, Mr. Abbot, is clear St this time you had not a penny to meet th fbill. And why did you want change in you have described ?—Witness : Aitse variety is charming in commerce as 41 as nature. (Laughter.)—Mr. Hesketh: will, I think, be able tq^how you that these ills were given to enable you to take up your 1 vm bills that were coming to maturity.— Vitness : I offered the shares to Smith and 'otter. Laurie urged me, I never bought he mill for myself and then put it upon ■jaurie, I deny it. I never treatedthe mill ,s my property (with great solemnity). I leny it in toto. I made an agreement vith Foot for the equity redemption of the 3ridgewater property. The memorandum ,vas in effect, "I hereby offer to purchase :rom you (Foot) the equity redemption of pour Bridgewater Farm, containing 694 acres, with all appurtenances; £100 in cash to be payable on the completion of the title. I will expend £50 on tho road from Miranda Ec- ' doubt if earned out by G-overnment, and the mortgagees to be released." —Mr. Hesketh : How can pou say after that you did not purchase, a* why should you offer shares to j others for ibe coal mine ?—I bought the mill for Laurie. I never went a journey with ■ greater reluctance than that with Laurie. I lent him not my horse—my pony. That show ; how willing I was to assist him. I will have witnesses if everything that took place when the menio-andum was written. I do not know thai, Mr. Laurie was merely Foot's agent. Mr. Laurie very adroitly drew that memoradum. I went U extricate Laurie from a difficulty he I had got into, in consequence of the person , Treweaa beine retained by Foot. He wanted more lax. I was obliged to make the best arrangement. It was not because I found it to be a bad bargain, and wished to put the property on to Laurie |that I let him have the exteided renewals, and did so for nothing. It vas not because I found it to be a bad bari&in, and was anxious to get rid of it, that I found the money for Laurie. Emphatically not. After I purchased the mill, the conveyI ance, it was understood, should be deposited 'in the bank. There was not an agreement to that effect; but the obligation upon Laurie was greater after he purchased the fee simple because more money Was advanced. —His Honor : The meaning of this is, I presume, that the witness being liable; for the £1000 upon Laurie's note, extending over a period of eighteen months, and on that account there was the greater obligation iv honor on Laurie to have deposited the mortgage so as to release him in some respects from his liability.