THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2292, 10 September 1870, Page 2

THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.

Of the many useful jhiave been brought forward wiis; no one was perhaps so urgently requijred at a new Bankruptcy Bill which of the present confused artd;,WandorihgAot. Such a Bid should have been frarhlpA suggestions of the various Chambers bf Commerce, and submitted to the judges of the Supreme Court, who might be called upon to make rules under it. We believe that under the present Act they have refused to make rules, and have stated on the bench that they will continue to refuse as long as they can. One of them, we believe, stated in open Court that the Legislature might make him administer the law, but they could not make him understand it! The Bill brought forward by the Government, we regret to say, has not come down in that shape that we can advocate its acceptance. Instead of repealing existing laws which are manifestly unworkable and full, of defects, and commencing dt iioro, this Bill makes only confusion worse confounded. We print the second section in full; —

The Bankruptcy Act, 1867, is herein referred to as “ the said Act;” the Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1868, is herein referred to as “the said Amendment Act,” and the said two Acts are herein referred to as “ the said Acts," And this Act, as well as the said Amendment Act shall be read.as part of the said Act.

Here, then, to UJ.h-ob.'d this Act it is necessary to understand ah have preceded it. Should a creditor, therefore, wish to take any action in a bankrupt eatate he must have all these Acts open before him, and be continually referring from thisA‘tto the ,others to see if it does not repeat any particular clause. This will be absolutely necessary under clause five :

The fourteenth, forty-sixth, and two hundred and twenty-first sections of the said Act, and the sections of the said Act numbered from two hundred and forty-six to two hundred and eighty-five, both inclusive, and the fifth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth sections of the said Amendment Act, are hereby repealed : Provided that this repeal shall not affect the past operation of the said provisions or the validity, of anything done or suffered, or any right, title, or obligation, or liability accrued before the coming into operation of this Act by or under such provisions ; nor shall the repeal interfere with the prosecution or affect the course of proceeding under or in relation to any petition or deed registered or file 1, or ordermade or thing done, under any such repealed provisions before the coming into operation of this Act, or affect any of the incidents or consequences of any such petition, de;d, or order-. . ...

Yet, with all this complication of clauses, repealed and unrepealed, some of the most flagrant defects of the old acts which have caused useless and expensive litigation have not been sought to be remedied. We may instance one that has been pointed out repeatedly by the Judges from the Bench. Under the 207 th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1867, the proof debt is thus provided for, ’

Every creditor of the [bankrupt may a 1 so, after adjudic ition, prove his debt by deposition in court or in chambers, or before a Registrar of the Supreme Court, or Clerk of the District Court, or at any meeting of creditors, elsewhere than in court; or by affidavit, and such pr.,of may be on his own oath, or that of any clerk or other person in his employment, who shall in his deposition or affidavit eet forth that he is authorised by his principal to make. the deposition: or affidavit, and that it is within his own knowledge and for the consideration stated, and to the best .of his knowledge and belief the debt remains unpaid and unsatisfied. Now, a glance at the returns of imports of the colony will suffice to show that in bankrupt estates home creditors must be largely interested. By the policy of the act is is clearly intended that aH creditors should have a voice in the election of a trustee, and in all meetings of creditors, exactly in proportion to the amount of their claims. Under this section, however (and the new bill does not repeal it), no home creditor can prove his debt, and consequently cannot record his vote ! . He cannot he present to prove his debt in propria permia, and ino agent or attorney .can make affidavit that- *‘ he is authorised by his principal to make the. deposition or affidavit, and that it is within his own knowledge that the debt was incurred.” ... , We need not pursue the examination of this bill any further. What the colony requires is that one sipiple measure be passed dealing complettdy with the question, and all other acts repealed. We should like, indeed, to see this pi'inciple extended to legislation in other directions. It would ccrtainiy cost the counfry something for a.little additional printing, hut this would be more than saved in lawyers’ bills. . Unless this principle is soon adopted v e shall ha ve our law a “ thing of shreds and patches.” It is surely not desirable to make it difficult fo carry on any business without constant recourse to wellfeed lawyers. England is now’rcforming heilegal system from the ver}' foundation with a view to greater certainty and simplicity ; it is surely not for us to repeat the blunders she is now seeking to undo. We trust the Government will not press such an important bill this session, and that they will endeavor during the recess to draw up one more simple and effective, and more likely to be final.WdUmjton Paper.