SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2603, 21 June 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.. This Day. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at tin o’clock. B VTHGATE V. THE BANK OF OTAGO LIMITED, This was a new trial of an action brought at the December sittings, to recover certain monies alleged to he wrongfully retained by the defendants. Mr Barton appeared for the plaintiff, who is provisional trustee in the estate of Louis Court, hotelkeeper, and Mr Smith, with whom was MrMacassey, for the defendant.

The declaration alleged that on the 12tli January, 1809, Louis Court committed an act of bankruptcy, and while in insolvent circumstances, voluntarily, and without pressure, gave possession to the defendants of all his goods and chattels, thus giving him an undue preference over his other ere ditors ; and that defendant afterwards sold such goods, the proceeds of the.sale amounting to Ll7 17s 41, and L 2553 16s 4d, A second alleged that on the same date the defendant wrongfully converted to Ids own use the goods and chattels referred to ; and a third count charged the defendant with retaining wrongfully the proceeds of the sale ; wherefore the plaintiff claims the sums of LI7 17s 4d and L2SSB 10s 4d. The defendant by his pleas denied all the material allegation in the declaration ; and for a further plea it was set up that Cou t, on the 12th Jan., ISG9, was justly indebted to the hank in the sum of Ll9il 7s 7d; that the due payment of that sum was Secured by a bill of sale; that the demand for. payment was not complied with; in consequence of that non-compliance, the defendant took possession of Court's goods and chattels, as he lawfully might; for a further plea that the goods were not Courts’ nor tho trustees, in proof of which the bill of sale was cited. The plaintiff’s replication denied the truth of the allegations contained in the pleas, and for a further repl cation in regard to the second, third, and fourth pleas, he said, not only did he claim for wrongful conversion of the goods purported to be assigned by the bill of sale, but also for the wrongful conversion of other goods and chattels which were not assigned by it, hut which were in Court’s p ssession as the time he committed an act of bankruptcy. Nfiticewas given that the plaintiff intended to dispute the validity of the bill of sale. The case for the plaintiff had not concluded at four o’clock.