SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2353, 17 October 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) ADJUDICATIONS. The following persons were adjudged bankrupts, and the first meeting of creditors was fixed for the 25th inst :—William Hunt, William Howell, John N. Merry, and James Skirving. FINAL DISCHARGES. There being no opposition in the following oases, the usual order was granted : —W. H. P. Dakers, S. S. Smith, and Win. Aitken. The matter of David Carey, senior, was postponed for four weeks. RE MILLER AND HALL. This was an application by Messrs Menlove, Wilson and Birch, and Ziele, creditors in this estate, the object of it being to obtain from the. Court an order declaring that the sum of Ll2u paid to the supervisors of the estate should be treated as assets in the estate, or at all events to discharge the estate from claims Ur costs in an action brought by the trustee against Mr 11. 8. Dods. Mr Macass -y, instucted by Mr Haggitt, appeared for the petitioning creditors ; and Mr Smith for Messrs Spodding and Copeland, in their private capacity, and not as supervisors. The facts of the case briefly stated are these Mr Bathgate was appointed trustee in the estate, and Messrs Copeland and Spedding supervisors. After these appointments had been made, an action was brought by Mr Bathgate, in his character of trustee against Mr Dods, to recover damage* for an alleged wrongful conversion of chattels belonging to the estate. Mr Dods had hold a bill of sale over the goods and stock in trade of the bankrupts, and in (he exercise of the power of sale contained in that security he sold shortly before the bankrupt’s declaration of insolvency. The trustee contended that the goods so seized were in the order and disposition of the bankrujrts ; and the action was brought on that assumption. Subsequently a writ of arrest was obtained from Mr Justice Ward, .and Mr Dods was arrested ; but application was afterwards 1 made to set it aside, and that application was successful. The result in the end was that the action itself was discontinued, and the costs incurred by Mr Dods were paid to him by the trustee, Mr Bathgate, and those costa have been charged to the estate. Some time after the discontinuance of (he action referred to. another action was commenced by Mr Bathgate, again acting on behalf of the estate, against Mr Dods, the cause of action being identical with that relied upon in the first action—the only difference in the proceedings was that in the second action a tccnical difficulty which existed in the first was obviated ; Mr Dods hearing of the commencement of the second action, came down from Melbourne to allow of service being made upon him, and had several interviews with Mr Bathgate. He threatened Mr Bathgate with an action for false imprisonment under the arre-t on the writ issued in the first action. In these proceedings Mr Bathgate acted upon instructions received from Messrs Copeland and Spedding, the supervisors, and the solicitor employed was Mr J. H. Harris, who was retain'd by the latter. Mr Bathgate also received a letter from the supervisors, and a number of creditors who agreed to indemnify him against the consequences of defeat, or against any expenses or damages which might be incurred. In the first instance, Mr Dods made a proposal, which so far as Mr Bathgate was concerned, was for tlie payment of a sum of L3O, that the second action should be discontinued, each party paying his own costs, and the threatened action for false imprisonment should be abandoned. So far ns Mr Bathgate was concerned (observed Mr Macasscy) the arrangement was a thoroughly satisfactory one, and no blame was attached to him in any way. It would seem at the time these ncgociations were being effected between Mr Bathgate and Mr Dods, a separate and private arrangement between the latter and the supervisors was entered into. Whether in this matter they were acting as supervisors or creditors mattered Jittle, hut it would be shown that the discontinuance of the action was effected by Mr Bathgate in consequence of instructions received from the supervisors, and further that the acceptance of L3O in settlement of claims upon Mr Dods was also the result of these instruefions. It was after the payment of LI2O to the supervisors in Mr Har is’ office that the second action was discontinued. That money was distributed by the supervisors among the five or six creditors who had signed the letter of indemnity to Mr Bathgate. Mr Macasscy remarked that it might possibly bo said that those creditors had assumed the responsibility of the proceedings brought against Mr Dods, and as they tad indemnified Mr Bathgate against all consequences, it was only fair that they'should shave what was obtained .as a consequence of their active interference. But the answer was that the estate was charged with the coats of the first action, and as it was the thing must appear to the Court to be a onesided affair. From the evidence adduced it would be impossible to believe that Messrs Copeland and Spedding had acted in any other capacity than that of supervisors in this matter. After a number of witnesses had been examined, and a lengthened argument by counsel, Ips Honor granted the application, and ordered the supervisors to pay the costs.