RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2213, 10 June 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Day, (Before A, C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Whetham v. Scott and Josling,—A claim for L2, being at the rate of 10s a week for four weeks posting books. Judgment for plaintiff, Msg with costs. Smyplies v. Watt. L 55. Mr Macassey for the defendant. This was a claim for a sum of money ailedged to be due to the plaintiff under the Gif wing circumstances : —A writ of fiari Jacws had been issued by the Supreme Court to le -y upon tlio goods of Ure Bussell for costs due to plain I .iff, amounting to L 44 6s lOd. It appeared from the evidence that on the 21st February, 1868, Mr Smythies obtain* I a decree awarding coats amoimring to 1.44 6s lOd. On the 9th Septerqber qf the same year, Mr Russell fifed a deed of arrangement, and on the Bth November, 1869, at the instance of the plaintiff, a writ of fieri facias was issued under which the Sheriff' seized the property of Russell on the 9th. Notice was giver, of the deed of ai rangoment on the 10th, and tic Sheriff relinquished psasesskn. Mr Macassey moved that the plaintiff must be nonsuited on two grounds ; first, that it was necessary to obtain leave of the Court to levy upon the goods of a debtor who had executed a deed of arrangement ; and secondly, the .a'dor of eqmplotp cvueiitiou which had been put ip, justified the defendant in releasing the goods of the debtor. Mr Macassey quoted nrecedonts in support of his view, and also referred to sections 260 and 2(53 of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr Smythies maintained that the property ou which the levy was made did not come within the provisions of the Act, as it was acquired subsequent to the execution of the deed of arrangement, and therefore no leave of Court was required to be asked. He also maintained that a certificate of complete execution was not good against any debt not barred by the deed, and that the writ had beep issued after phe date qt the d«od. He had not signed the deed of arrangement, and it was not for the Sheriff to say whether the amount claimed was haired by the deed or not; it t,ms for the bankrupt, if ho thought the deed was vitiated by the execution, to apply to the Court to set it aside. Mr Macassey replied, and maintained that the points were not answered,

Mr Smythies he was bound by the deed, but that the debt was not barred by the deed. Mr Maoassey said the debt claimed for was clue at the time the deed of arrangement was made. His Worship took time to consider the case.