SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 582, 10 August 1909, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

CASES IN BANKRUPTCY." 1 Conrad 'Christian August Wilkcnning, builder,:oi. .Wellington, made.application to hi,. Honour /Justice Cooper yestorday for 1 » discharge in bankruptcy.; Mr. Hind- ' marsh .represented tho ..bankrupt,' and Mr. 6. Tanolej, on bclmlf of the Official Assignee, eali - th*t /no-', objection - was made to . tho granting of .the ■ application. .. .The discharge wai';Rr*uted accordingly. . ' ■ Application «'»s made for a dischaigo by John Morris Scli&piro, trading as John Morris "aiid. Company, ,• furnituro manufacturora, 'Wellington.; Air...- Levi-,-' appeared for 7 the, bankrupt'. - . His; Honour remarked that no further' report had been received from- the. Official Assignee,-and,. as it was_,.v heavy bankruptcy, Uccoiild not disposo of it eiit'taoroinforrnatibn.,• The . wcro represented- by,tho'sum of ■£4000, -".nBec'urcd ' creditors '.£1566,' assets. £5347,; and valub of', securities • £8812. Mr. Levi ; said ■ that the Gifioial .'As'sigiiep was holdings on to \ a property, tho sale of which, if it realised anything - like its. realvalue, would enable . : the bankrupt to pay about 20s. m £. ' His ,Honour, remarked ■ further that the Oilicial.'; Assigneo,. alleged that the. books . b4en badly kept,-and had not been written : ■up Vfor a considerable time.' If ' such _frero the: case, - bankrupt was guilty . of an offence ■ under the Bankruptcy. Act. /The matter would be adjourned for a week in order that , the' Officia l, Assignee; might furnish. anothfc, ' report:,'■-; > '■■■:'-%■■' -'-v.IN BANCO. The caso of A. T. Almond, proprietor of the; Trocadero Hotel, v. W. Naismith, .pro* . prietiH' .of the, Te Aro Laundry,, which' -'a decided before Dr.: M'Arthu-r,- S.M., . was - .brought, before' his Honour ''Mr. Justice . Coopor-yesterday 5 morning/ . An appeal .was brought by:'. Almond ;.as to the judgment of --' tho magistrate cm-. a. counter-claim for. £200damages for- alleged - wrongful detention of washing! Judgment had been given .i'for Naismith. Mr. HiiiclinarSh appeared for tho - appellant. Almond, and intimated that- he did. : not to proceed with tho :apptal. Mr.-: Dunn appeared -'.for."'tho - resjionderit,. Naismith, who was awarded five guineas . costs. - V - - SEIZURE OF A CHINAMAN'S HORSE. ■■Appeal, was beard by his Honour Mr. Justioß:;CoOper in the . case of D.' Andrews v: l f an Tu, in which Dr. M'Arthur, S.M;, had awarded Fan Tu £10 damaged. for, tho illogaL seirure, of his horso by Andrews. It was- : stated in the : Lower Court', that one Majjpaire' had borrowed £60: from the S,outh Pacific Loan Company, and- gave ■ his own horse- and his -brother's horse as security. Onq of the horses was sold to Fan Tu..'Tho LoanCompanyacting' through -Andrews, wK&viad guaranteed the. amount, seized. the horse, Fan Tu had purchased. ' '''-lir.: Hindmarsh, who appeared for the respondent, Fan, Tiij contended that the bill ' of : sale was -invalid; as it did not . distinguish the two horses.;-ThetConrt had 'to consider (1)':-;whfether. the ',mortgaM ; .of _a carthorse was a mortgage of "stock within the mean- . ing-of the Chattels. Transfer , and (2)'. whether two people, giving. a bill .bhsalo. eaoh possessed'of property not distinguished iri-'the schedule, could :«ach be described as the. owner of tho property. • Mr. Dunn appeared for tho appellant, Andraws. .".His Honour.: . intimated.;.that,, he ' would deliver'judgment on Friday. GAS-FITTINGS IN A TENDER. His Honour. Mr'.Justice Chapman heard an yesterday in regard to the case of 'Harry "NVilson- Davies, plumber, Wellington,' n William George ! Em«ny/ builder, •'Wellington, ■which: was decided in. . the Magistrate's. Court by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M. Davies, •bad':sned-Emeny. for. the: cost of the/gasrfit^ ■ tirie&,erected.":in :'and,,;;Steretfso!i's ;• building in Brandon Street, .for -which Eni- - ebiy.;'had. contracted. In tender for cer- ; tain.plumbing work, Davies 'had:-stated a lump, sum of £390. He' had claimwl. that the; gas-fitting's' were -not ; , in : .this' tejider. ; The specification for Emeny's contrapt'. provided that the sum of £120 was tovbe allowed for-gas-fittings/ and the quesdispute.'waa whether this'£l2o was,' 1 ori.was. not, included' in the. £390 . tendered byiDavies to Emeny. Tho cost of: the. gasfittings in the building actually' amounted to': £106, '-arid the magistrate _ had given, judgment for this' amount' agaiiist' Emeny, ' . holding that, as Davies's tender specified cortain things ho was /going ' .to do, evidence) of a general : custom _to -include all plurbbing Work was not admissible. In tho Low6r Court,-Emeny had claimed also that, if.Jihe gas was not included in Davies's contract, no had never entered info any contract with Davies to fix tho gas. - Tho Magistrate's judgment- did.not deal with, this' latteri'point.: Emeny appeailed |on the grounds that.,the magistrate's, .judgment ;, was \ erroneous :in point-'of fact, and in point of law; that tho defendant (Emeny) claimed a nonsuit'on the ground:. that , thero was no evidenco of a. contract having been entered " into'-ior.-the- gas-fittings," but 'the ' magistrate gavo no decision on this- question; 1 that r , evidence as to the .custom-.-of',archi-tects/ and plumbers was made part, of the plaintiff's/ (Davies's),.case,, but evidence ad. to;'cusl6.m tendered by . the defendant, had .• been improperly rejected. ■ w ■ Mr. Skerrett, K.C., with. liinv- Mr. Fitz- , gibbon, appeared for , the. appellant, and Mr. Grny/fortHoVespohdent. • His-Honour'reserved judgment. :