SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1069, 7 March 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE CRITICISED. MR. HERDMAN COMPLAINS. Mr. Justice Chapman presided over a short sitting of the Supremo Court in bankruptcy' yesterday, and heard three applications, by bankrupt;, for discharge. The only case which gave rise to any unusual comment was that in which George I'innock applied for his.discharge. Mr. A. L. Herdman appeared in support of tho application, and Mr. W. H. D. Bell for the Official Assignee, by whom the application was opposed. A report from the Assignee, detailing grounds for opposition, was laid before tho Court. "An Extraordinary Case," Asked by his Honour if he had anythin? to say regarding this report, Mr. Herdman replied that the case was an extraordinary one. It seemed that the Assignee, from the very first, had taken up an attitude of distinct hostility towards (his bankrupt — an attitude for which the circumstances of the case sunplied no justification at all. The Assignee had stated that the bankrupt had rendered no assistance in winding up tho estate. Counsel had no hesitation in saying that this allegation was not in accordance with fact. Right through, Finnock had been ready to furnish all information which the Official Assignee might desire. It might be true that Pinnock had not as much business ability and knowledge as men of wider experience, but he had assisted the Assignee to the best of his ability. The matter of taxicabs had been thoroughly thrashed out, when an investigation was made. -'under the provisions of the Act, by the Assignee through his counsel. On that occasion, I'innock had been examined, and everybody who had had anything to do with these taxi-cabs gave evidence. Mr. Pinnock and His Books. A suggestion was thrown out in this report, Mr. Herdman continued, that Tinnock.had acted dishonestly. Tho Assignee should give some tangible rcason\ for throwing out such an accusation. Reflections had also been cast by the Assignee upon the manner in which Pinnock had kept his books. Well, the books had been examined by Mr. Clarke, a competent authority in such matters, and ho could give an opinion. Personally, counsel thought that thero was very little wrong with them. "You Suggest that the Assignee !" His Honour: "You suggest that the Official Assignee has not acted impartially in this case, but in a one-sided way?' 1 Mr. Herdman: "I consider that he has. not. treated this matter fairly, but has acted throughout as though expecting to find Pinnock guilty of some crime. The Officii Assignee should have shown some more substantial grounds for the serious allegations, which he has laid." His Honour :"What is the value of this whisky (mentioned in the report) that was discovered afterwards?" The Assignee: "About ,£35." Mr. Herdman: "Was any explanation given about that?"—" No." Mr. Herdman: "Was any such explanation sought?"—" Yes." His Honour remarked that he would rather not deal with the case at that time, but Would prefer, to postpone tho whole matter, and give the Assignee time to investigate. ■ Had Mr. Bell any objection to offer, on behalf of his client, to this course? .Mr. Bell replied that, after 'what his friend had said, the Assignee should bo given a chance to go into the box. "Oh, certainly." said his Honour, "at the,hearing." The mutter, he continued, was really not ripe for bearing, and should be postponed. The Assignee, in ihis report,. suggested a postponement for six months. His Honour would not definitely. postpone the cose for that period,.-as tho Assignee might .'possibly, 'before" that time, bo ready to go on with it. Mr. Herdman: "In any case, I will be free to bring it up myself at the end of that lime." Other Bankruptcy Cases. Satisfactory reports were made by. the Assignee in the case of two other applicants ■ for discharge, Richard Swaysland, for whom Mr. E. J. Pelherick appeared, and Herbert Oliver Wilton, who made application in person. In each case the discharge applied far was granted.

SALE OF BIRCHHILL ESTATE. MOTION FOR NEW TKIAL. . A motion considered in the Supremo Court yesterday arose out of the complicated commission case, concerning the Birchhill Estate. (Marlborough), which was heard by Mi - . Justice Chapman and a jury of twelve on February l(i and IV last. In thisi action Frederick Hale?, retired sheep-farmer, Wellington, and others, claimed from Devereux King and Co., commission agents. Chvistchurch, the return of a sum of £500, deposit, alleged to have been paid to defendants as part purchase-money for the estate. Defendants counter-claimed for £594, as commission on the sale of the estate. After hearing evidence the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. At' the request of Mr. A. Blair, who appeared for the plaintiffs, the Court reserved leave to move for a new trial. It also ruled that, upon a date to be fixed, argument should be taken upon a nonsuit point raised by Mr. Blair, that Devereux's misconduct precluded him from receiving any commission, and that he was estopped from settling up the sale to Morland, in view of the fact that there was a sale to Somorville, carried out at his express request. When the ease came on again yesterday, Mr. Blair moved that judgment be entered for the plaintiff, or, in the'altemative, for a new trial. As at. the previous hearing, Devereux aud Co. were represented by Mr. T. Young and Mr. F. W. Johnston. Having listened to argument by counsel for and against the motion, his Honour reserved his decision.

SEQUEL TO LIQUIDATION. A DEAL IN BICYCLES. A sequel to the liquidation of the once well-known Wellington company of, Yerex, Barker, and Finlay, Ltd., occupied the attention of Mr. Justice CUapmau at the Supreme Court yesterday ■ ntternoou. '1110 plaintiff, itichard Tree Badham, liquidator of Yerex, Barker, and Finlay, Ltd., was represented by Mr. W. H. D. Bell, and the defendant, George Manly Yerex, of Kilston, 'i'iiuranga, farmer, by Mr. T. Young. According to'the statement of claim; the compauv went into voluntary liquidation in November, 1008. The company sold and delivered to the defendant in March, 1906, a propurtiou of a stock of bicycles, the defendant agreeing to pay £3GO for the same. Sundry expenses amounting to £7 }2s. 2d. were subsequently incurred by the company at _ the request of the j defendant in connection with these bicycles, and tho company had received moneys to the amount of £28 18s. from the defendant in reduction of tho amount due by him. Them remained due from the defendant: to the plaintiff a balance of .Cl3B Ms. 2d., which tho plaintiff accordingly claimed. Alternatively the plaintiff said the balance due by tho defendant to the company on March 31, 1907, as shown by the company's books, was £3-11 19s. Kxpcnses amounting to £1 2s. 7d. had since been incurred by the company at tho request of the defendant, nni.! 'he company had received from him £t 7s. sd. in reduction of tho balance, leaving £338 Ms. 2d; duo from the defendant to' the plaintiff- Tho plaintiff accordingly claimed this amount under cither cause of action alternatively. For the defence the above allegations as to tho sale and purchase of the bicycles were denied, anil the defendant also denied knowledge as 'o whether the plaintiff was the liquidator of tho company, lie further denied having purchased any stock for the company, but said that ho entered into .an .agreement with the company as set out in a letter signed'by Barker as managing director of the company and stating: "In consideration of vuui' agreeing to the debiting of your account, with I he sum of £300 . . . we ngrre to accept settlement in the following manner: First, by nnymnnt of net proceeds of bicycles and bicycle suudries.

being stock purchased from the company conjoiutly by yourself and Messrs Finlay and Barker. Second, by payment of dividenl on your ordinary share capital as such may become payable from time to time. Jt is further agreed not to make any demands for payment of (he sum of £360 except as above specified." J)efendant further said thai the stuck was never delivered ti. him, but was sold by the company, which received all the proceeds and that r.o dividends on the shares mentioned in the agreement ever became payable to the defendant. Defendant had performed the agreement on his part and denied that he was. indebted to the company in any sum. Argument and evidence having bri-n heard, his Honour, in delivering judgj ment for the defendant, said he could not separate the entry in the books of the company from the'letter written contemporaneously by the managing direc- | tor. An arrangement: had been made with the consent of all the parties, and the letter expressed the position of thai arrangement which was favourable to the defendant The defence had been made out, and judgment must be for the defendant. Costs would be allowed, as the answer was given -when the demand was made. The liiuidatnr had done his duty in bringing the action. OKAHUKURA BLOCK CASE. DECISION HESERVED. The hearing of the Native land case relating to Oknhukura Block was concluded yesterday by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Cooper. The case has a history going back to 188lj. The object of the present proceedings is to move tho Court to issue e. mandamus restraining the Chief 'Judge of the Native Land Court from ordering a rehearing of matters decided by the Appellate Court in regard to the apportionment of certain land among the Native claimants. Tho questions before the. Court go to tho jurisdiction of the Chief Judge, and in the event, of his jurisdiction in tho matter being affirmed, further questions as to tho admissibility of evidence before him are raised. The plaintiffs are Patena Kerehi and Keepn Puataata, of T.okaanu, acting for themselves and other owners of that part of the Okahukura Block known as Ukahukura, No.. Bm, No. 2. Tho defendants are Taitumu Marangataua, Kumeroa Te. Naku, Kino Marangataua, and 28 other Natives, acting for themselves and other owners of Okahukura, No. 2, and Papakai, No. 2. His Honour, Mr. Jackson Palmer, Chief Judge of'tho Native Land Court, is also joined as a defendant. The Okahukura Block comprises 52.700 acres and is in the Tauno district. Mr. M. Chapman, K.C., with him Mr. S. A. Atkinson, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. IT. D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr. T. W\ Lewis, of Hastings, for the defendants. The Court reserved its decision.