SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2876, 8 May 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. This Day. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) M ‘Beath v. M ! Donald.— Motion for farther consideration. Mr Catomore for plaintiff. Mr B. Cook for defendant. Motion as prayed for. Re John Crickmore. A bankrupt. — Motion to declare the complete execution of a deed of arrangement. Mr Stewart opposing. The matter was adjourned till June 3. Bank or New Zealand v. Wain.— His Honor gave judgment in this matter, which was an application for an injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with certain property, the subject of one or two securities. The facts, shortly stated, are these: In December, 1871, F. P, Mansfield purchased from ( haplin his coaching plant, giving bills extending over a stated period, to secure which Mansfield executed a mortgage of the plant to Chaplin as payment. Several of these bills Chaplin endorsed ever to the Bank, and these, after Mansfield’s failure were dishonored. In February, 1871, Chaplin, who had previously resumed his business, granted a bill of sale to Mr Job Wain to secure certain advances made by him. For the plaintiffs it was contended that the deed of December, 1870, was substantially a security for the payment of the bills ac cepted by Mansfield; that it was equivalent to a bill of sale or a mortgage on chattels; and as the bills remained dishonored, and unreturned by Chaplin, the plaintiffs were entitled to the security offered by the deed of December, as against the bill of sale. The defendants (Wain and Chaplin) contended that the deed of December was merely what it purported to be, a lease, with a tailment with the ordinary purchasing clause, which only became binding upon Chiplin when the last of the bills should have been paid. Thus two questions were raised—first was the deed of December security for the payment of the bills in the hands of the plaintiffs ; second, did it come within those cases which decided that the bids and the security could not be severed ; and the holders of the former were equitably entitled to the benefit of the latter. His Honor, after reviewing the arguments on both sides, said the plaintiffs were entitled to the injunction they asked on both of the questions raised in the pleadings, and gave judgment accordingly : costs to be costs m the cause. Mr Smith asked for leave to appeal, which His Honorjdeclined to grant as it was too near the sitting of the Appeal Court. The defendants could petition. [We are obliged to hold over the remainder of our report,]