SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2305, 26 September 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY. Tins Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) PETITION'S FOR ADJUDICATION". A. M‘Donald, William Jones, Thomas Ayei, Montgomery Cunningham, and John M'Naught, were adjudicated bankrupts. The first meetings to take place on the 4th October. ADJOURNMENTS. William Allan, final examination and discharge ; and Hyman Cohen, were postponed to the 3rd October. Rickard Orr to lOtb October, COMPLETE EXECUTION OF DEEDS. John Smiih Hukem, and Robot CTammond. KIN AI, DISCHARGES. James Ormond, and W. H. Mansfield, RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Tims Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. W. S. Douglass y. W. Kelsey and James Strang.—L44 10s sd. Tbs debt was admitted by Strang, Kelsey did not appear, and Strang was examined by Mr Stewart, who appeared for the plaintiff. He stated that Kelsey and he were partners in the job, and jointly liable. Judgment, by consent, for the pinntiff for the amount claimed. R. Gillies v. John Russel.—For the amount of an 1.0. U., L 5. Mr Tm ton for the plaintiff. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Ching Choa v. Howell.—For goods supplied, L2 1 Is, for balance of account for goods supplied. Mr Saunders, for Mr Eapton, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Saunters applied to amend the particulars, which was consented Iq by the defendant. Lo Kiong was sworn by the Chinese interpreter. He did not know the defendant, but in August he went into his shop with Ching dice, who bought the goods for which payment was sued, and paid lor them, ’ibis was confirmed by the evidence of the plaintiff. No defence was offered, excepting that the transaction was with Lo and not Ching Chce, Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. M ‘Lean and Speddlng v. W. N. V. Nicol. —L26 3s. Mr Catomore for the plain!iff, Mr Stewart for the defence, _ The claim was to receive the balance of dividend due under a deed of arrangement duly executed, and filed in the Supreme Court. Five shillings in the pound had been received on LIGI 2s 6d : the claim was now for the dividend due oii the balance, LUH 12s sd. The dividend on tho balance was tendered, hue the defendant holding goods claimed by the plaintiffs, and making it a condition that all claim for them should be relinquished on payment of the dividend, it was refused. Both of the plaintiffs were examined, and gave evidence ns to the particulars which have already been published. Mr Stewart objected that, first there was no covenant made in the deed for payment of a composition ; and secondly, that an action had been commenced in the Supreme Court for recovery of the goods for which the dividend was claimed, and that there was no proof the •action h.yl beep abandoned. A further objection was, that having once elected to treat the defendant as a wrong doer, they could not retract but must continue that course. Mr Catomore replied, and urged that the fact of tho deed of composition, rendered an action useless, and therefore not worth prosecuting. Judgment postponed to Friday. The Court then adjourned to Wednesday,