SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2451, 23 December 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Yesterday. (Before Mr .Justice Chapman.) BATHGATE V. THE HANK OE OTAUO (LIMITED). The trial of this ease was resumed to day. The ease for the defence was gone into, the examination of witnesses occupying three hours. Mr Smith, in addressing the jury, said the simple question for them to determine was whether Mr Court committed an act of bankruptcy on the 13th—not that he admitted that he did so on that day, because there was not a tittle of evidence to support that proposition. Still it mattered not whether he committed the acts of bankruptcy alleged to have been committed on the 13th, because on that day the Bank obtained effectual possession under the bill of sale. He would tell them, subject to the correction of the Court that, so long as the Bank took as effectual possession as they could under the circumstances, the fact of Court having remained on the premises, which he hud a perfect right to do, was nothing to the purpose. Court remained there in two capacities—first as owner of the stock-in-trade and furniture, subject of course to the Bank’s mortgage, having the Bank’s permission to retail the stock-in-trade until they took possession, ai)d he was also there as tenant of the premises ; so that the Bank had no right to turn him out, nor to strike ptit his name from over the door, which however had been done. He contended that the fact of Court shutting himself up ou the 12th had iio special significance, nor could it bo found fr->m the evidence that ip the words pf the Act he had “intended thereby to defeat and delay his creditors.” The reason for shutting himself-to prepare a statement of his affaiis with a view of inducing Mr Larnaph fo render him further assistance- -was a good and sufficient one, apd it was a gratuitous assumption on the part of the pounsel for the trustee to put if fu any other way. Mr Smith commented in strong temps on Mr Court’s evidence as to the secopd shutting up, which he characterised as being a statement made for the purpose of strengthening the case for the creditors. The jury retired to consider their verdict shortly before five o’clock, and after being absent f r some time came into Court and requested that Mr Court might be sent for, in order to ascertain from him whether, when he shut himself up for the second time, he did so for the purpose of de'ayiug his creditors. The question was answered in the affirniative, At a little after seven o’clock the jury again into Court with the findings; but some of them were of so ambiguous a character that the Judge refused to receive them. After a further absence of nearly three hours they arrived at a verdict substantially in favor of the plaintiff. The following are the principal issues apd thp answers tq them : —Was lands Court, ou the 12 th day of January, IS7O, indebted to the defendant and dfveps other persons in various sums of money ?--Yes. Being so indebted and knowing that he was then in insolvent circumstances aud about to become a bankrupt, did the said Louis Court, ou the 12th January, 1870, voluntarily and fraudulently, and without any pressure ou the part of the defendants, and with intent to give the defendants an undue preference over the other creditors of him the said Louis Court, deliver to the defendants ; and did the defendants fraudulently intending to obtain such undue preference accept and take delivery of the goods, chattels, ami stock-in-trade ill the first count in the declaration

mentioned?— No. Did the defendants, after the said bankruptcy of the said Louis Court, convert to their own use and wrongfully deprive the plaintiff as such trustee of the * goods, chattels, and stock-in-trade men- * tioned in the third count of the declaration! —Yes, L.1,716 10s Bd.