SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2221, 20 June 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Tms Day, IN BANKRUPTCY. . (Before Mr Justice Chapman ) FINAL EXAMINATIONS. The 27th instant was fixed for the final examination of Geo. Humphrey and Henry Crcgg. ADJUDICATION, Alex. Shand was adjudicated a bankrupt, and tho first meeting of creditors fixed fur the 28th instant, DISCHARGES, In the following cases discharges were granted, there being no opposition :-AV. A. Bugler, George Lumb, Maria Salicia Reis, Arch. MTmloe, Win, Wood, and E. J. Schlotel (on payment of Provisional Trustee’s fees). The cases of Wm Boucher and James Milner were adjourned for a week. Re John Ross. — A deed of arrangement between the bankrupt and his creditors was, on tho application of Mr Harris, declared completely executed. Re John Gardner, butcher.—Application for final discharge. There was no opposition. His Honor: Tho trustee's report is not very favorable, but rather unfavorable. It appears that the bankrupt sold his business for L3-sl>, Part of this money went to dis*

charge certain business debts which he had guaranteed. Ho received the balance ef L 155, and part of that he applied to the payment of creditors, and knowing the extent of his liabilities and assets, he must have been aware that he was not solvent at the time. For about a fortnight before he filed his declaration of insolvency he handed over L4O to his wife. Now his debts amount to L 1,581, and there arc no assets. According to the report of the provisional trustee, the bankrupt has certainly preferred some of his creditors to others, well knowing at the time he was not in a condition to pay all—in other words, that he was not insolvent ; yet I find that he put away L4O really for his own use. Ido not think I can entirely pass over that ; L am bound to take notice of these things apart from any opposition. I shall suspend the final order for three months. orrosED CASES. Re John Dale. —Application for discharge. The bankrupt was examined by Mr Haggitt as follows I was a member of the late ti rm of Gardner and Dale. I was not aware that I owed Wright, Robertson, and Co. any large amount. 1 included their names in the schedule, because I was served with a writ. The amount of their claim is Ll7l Ss. Tho partnership began on May 24, 1807 ; aud was dissolved August 9, 18(19. In May, 1869, I had no property other than 1113’ share in the business. The firm owned a freehold section of laud in Moray place, for which L 220 was paid. This was settled on my wife 011 tho 21st May, 1869, because Gardner had drawn more out of tho business than I. In tho same month I made over my furniture to my wife. The properly in Moray place brings in L 45 a year. When I dissolved partnership, I received L3OO ; the money was banked, and a lot of accounts were paid with it. I gavo my wife L3O sometime before tiling my declaration of insolvency, on the 2ml May last, —more than a fortnight before that. I had nothing t® do with a debt to Driver, Maclean, ami Co. of L 1260. At tho time of the dissolution 1 did not know of the debt to Wright, Robertson and Co. It was incurred in 1868 At the Rattray street shop of the firm all the accounts w®ro settled ; I attended strictly to that in High street. My other creditors are Cooper, IA 10« ; and Muir, L2. By Mr Kenyon : 1 first heard of Wright, Robertson and Co. ’s claim three months ago, when Mr Wright sent for mo. Two days afterwards Mr Stephenson told me they did not expect me to pay it. I gave them notice of tho dissolution.

Mr Haggitt applied for an order for the sale of the furniture, which was granted, and also for the suspension of bankrupt’s order of discharge. Mr Kenyon contended that it would be a hard case if the bankrupt’s family wore to suffer for the neglect of the opposing creditors, who should have instituted proceedings immediately after the dissolution.

Mr Wright was examined, and stated that his linn was not awa:e of the debt until two mouths ago. It was a balance, and was not known through an error of a former bookkeeper, who had drawn on Gardner and Dale for a LIOO too little. Gardner had told witness he knew of the error, but he did not know that Dale did.

His Honor observes that Mr Wright's evidence put the case in a much better aspect than it was before ; it explained the reason why upon notice of the dissolution Wright, Robertson did not give notice of the debt. But there remained the fact that a little before the dissolution, that all bankrupt’s property, except his share of the business, was put away without the possible reach of creditors. It was the bankrupt’s duty to have ascertained what his debts were, and made some provision for meeting them. He had takep every shilling he could scrape opt of the business; and’ a, business creditor was squeesed out, without any remedy. He (the Judge) thought such conduct reckless, and would visit it by suspending the order of discharge for six months.