SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2709, 23 October 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

ra BANKRUPTCY. This Day, (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) ' ADJUDICATIONS. John Nelson and Thomas Fereus were acl judged bankrupts ; meetings of c editors to take place-in Nelson’s case on the 31st inst., and in Fereus’s case, at Oamaru, on the 2nd November. Isaac Buckley was adjudged a bankrupt on a creditor’s petition ; meeting of creditors fixed for the 7th Novein': «r. MISCELLANEOUS. Re E. A. & R. Julius. —The appointment of trustee was confirmed, and November 13 fixed for the bankrupts’ last examination. Re George Horton and Thomas Farrell. —November 6 was fixed for the bankrupts’ last examination. Re Edward Hamilton, of Oamaru.—Mr Stewart applied on behalf'of the trustee, under section 308, for a Judge’s certificate ordering proceedings to be taken against the bankrupt for a misdemeanor. The bankrupt was ordered to surrender on November 30, 1868, which he failed to do, and a certificate by Mr Justice Ward to that effect was handed in. Under section 308 a certificate was required approving of the prosecution, and giving costs to the trustee. He (Mr Stewart) had asked to commence the prosecution in that Court, but Mr Justice Ward was of opiuiou it should be begun in an inferior Court. Under section 305 the Bankruptcy Court had thesair.e jurisdiction as a justice of the peace in commencing these proceedings. His tionor : It seems to me rather bard to ask the Court to approve of a prosecution where it knows nothing of the circums:ances of the case.

Mr Stewart submitted that the only circumstance of which the Court needed to be informed was that the bankrupt should have surrendered and did not, and, therefore, was indictable for a misdemeanor. There was no doubt about the misdemeanor having.been committed ; the only question was whether the Court should give the certificate entitling the prosecutor to obtain his costs out of a certain fund. His Honor: It seems to me that in all cases of obvious discretion being left to the Court, it ought to be informed of some circumstances to move that discretion. If the prosecution was a matter of course, why did not the Legislature say so ? and if merely a a question of costs, why, as in many other cases, did not the Legislature enact that there should be a certificate of the judge after trial as to costs ? Besides it places the Court in a position it does not favor ; because it apparently makes the Court both prosecutor and judge. Mr Stewart observed that that was not the intention; and remarked that a jtrima fade case being made out, was ample ground for an order of the Court. His Honor : The certificate is conditional that the Court approves of the prosecution. Mr Stewart pointed out the the misdemeanor meant contempt of Court, It was to be observed that there \yas a number of cases in which prosecutions could be instituted.

His Honor said he would consider the application. Re Arthur A. Smith, of Oamarn. The bankrupt was examined by Mr Smith as to some of his dealings in horses ; but his replies appeared to be of so satisfactory a character that counsel intimated that he did not intend opposing his discharge. Mr Smith applied for an order for the sale of the horses in question on the ground that there had been no sale of them by the bankrupt to one Don; but his Honor thought that the transaction—viz., Don taking the horses as security fora bill which he bad endorsed and ultimately paid, the vendors of the horses to bankrupt insisting upon r ceiving an endorsed acceptance—was a perfectly reasonable one. The matter was adjourned for a week, in order that the trustee might report.