SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1532, 30 August 1912, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honour Mr. Justice Sim.) GRANVILLE HUNT'S CHATTELS. THJ3 AFTERMATH. Memories, of a bankruptcy, which caused a stir in city business circles two years ago, were revived in tho Supremo Court yesterday during the hearing of a civil action involving rather an interesting point in bankruptcy law. Tho action was brought in an endeavour to recover possession of certain furniture allegedly part of the bankrupt estato of Granville Ilwnt, who was formerly a commission agent in, Wellington, and who (subsequent to his bankruptcy) was sentenced to imprisonment on criminal charges arising out»of his business transactions. Tho parties to yesterday's action were tho Official Assignee, plaintiff, and Henry Fielder and Co., furniture dealers, of Manners Street, Wellington, defendants. Mr. sr. Myers appeared for tho Official ■Assignee, - while Mr. C. B. with Mr. D. Smith, appeared for Fielder and Co, Assignee Demanded Furniture, In the statement of (Claim it was set Out tliiit in March, 1(110, Granville Hunt purchased from Fielder and Co. furniture priced at ,£2ll lGs. 7d. Between March and May, Hunt paid the sum of ■£- r >o on account. On August 9, 1910, Fielder and Co. (it wns alleged)' wrongfully took possession of the furnituro and removed it from Hunt's residence. '• On August 'ii, 101 ft, the Official Assignee, was appointed by the Supreme Court to be:-receiver'and manager of Hunt's esac<l, nine days later, Hunt was ad'judged a bankrupt. Tho Official Assignee then demanded possession of the funiiture and, as Fiolder and Co. refused to deliver it, a claim was now made to recover possession. In t w alternative a sum of ,£2OO in lieu thorcof iras demanded. n Alternative causes of. action were set mT? foment of claim as follow: ' wrni P.f ''efendnnfs (Fielder and Co.) 1 Wimr ' V • I | emoveJ the furniture from Hunts residence and wrongfully concerted u( 0 their own use, and the right ■of. action-in-regard to this wrongful Sn' 1 OfK a -P''I®oll1 ® 011 fr , om 1T ""t to <he i Umcml Assignee, . who claimed £200 ' damages m respect thereof; (2) that, if ® lurniture were removed with Hunt's consent, it was a fraudulent preference i r? that. Hunt's bank! ruptcy dated back to a date prior to August 0. the date when Fielder and Co. removed the furniture, because Hunt then owed a sum sufficient to support a petition !'iTherefore the furnituro nir • , . . B Ivas tho property of the ttS Assignee, and if Hunt authorised I 'elder and Co. to removo it, ho committed an act of bankruptcy by attemptin 0 to fvvoul lus creditors. What the Other Sida Has ta Say. Fielder and Co., in the statement of defence, admitted that they had removed the furniture, but denied that the removal was.illegal. They asserted that tney had removed tlt-a furnituro under an agreement with Hunt entitling them to do it" , a o l ' ee,ilc 'nt was entered into bv Hunt because Fielder and Co. had brought pressure to ,b?ar on him, and had threatened him with legal proceedings, the intention being that tlx© furniture should be sold and the proceeds of the sale paid to Fielder and Co. in satisfaction of bills" duo to them by Hunt. Witnesses, Argument, Etc< A large,number-of witnesses .were calE ed, and tho hearing of evidence did not conclude until after i p.m. Mr. Myers objected to tho evidence of certain witnesses, as to business practice in the casa of customers who did not complete payment for furniture bought. His Honour allowed the evidence to be tendered, but took a note of the objection. At the conclusion of evidence, Mr. Morison, suggested that argument should bs heard on another day. Mr. Myers said that he was ready to go on, but eventually it was decided that the case should be adjourned until Saturday morning, at 10 a.m.

WHERE TO SHIFT IT? NATIVE lAND ACT CASE. In the Supreme Court, in Chambers, yesterday morning, Jlr. Justice Edwards heard an application in regard to the Native- land Act and a certain block of land -at Mangatainokn. Tho application was to.rembve into tho Court ot Appeal for argument a case stated by the Native Land Court. Mr. E. P. Bnnny, as counsel for the Public--Trustee (executor of tho will of Knrepa Waatn), appeared in support of the application. Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for tho Native-. Land Registrar, while Mr. G. Samuel, represented certain Native owners, all of whom submitted to the judgment of the Court. His Honour said that lie would consider tlvo matter, and consult Mr. Justice Sim as he-had promised. Ho 'felt sure, hirnsdf, , that the removal could not bo made. The Judges of tho Supreme Court had (ai' every . practitioner knew) always arranged, when the:cases were of sufficient importance, to- have -them'heard ■ before a full:' Bench whether there was a right of appeal or not. That course could bs followed.-in this .case. The only difference wojild bt> that the certificate sent to the. Native Land Court would be from the Supreme Court instead of, from ths Court of Appeal, as would be the case if the , present application were ■granted. .;;;.■. ■ ■