SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3467, 2 April 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY. Thursday, April 2. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) Brooklet (appellant) v. Burt and ANOTHER(respondents).—-This appeal case was concluded after we went to press yesterday. Mr Chapman having finished his argument, Mr otewart replied, and his Honor then de. cided that judgment must be given in favor of the appellant. He had no doubt that the statute requiring notice of appeal to be lodged within three days had been complied with. As to the merits of the case, the terms of the contract had to be gleaned from the telegrams which passed between the parties, and in these respondents stated the iron was “slightly damaged.” The Resident Magistrate, however, found that the extent of damage was fifteen per cent, on the price agreed on. The cases cited by counsel shewed that when an agreement is made for a specific article, if it does not come up to the terms of the agreement, the purchaser is perfectly justified in refusing to receive and pay for it. If he had received and used part of it, there might bo a right of cross-action, or a deduction might bo made for the quantity used, but in this case it was not so. The appeal would be allowed, with costs.

Re a Deed of Mortgage, Holmes to Sir J. Y, Simplon. —This was a petition for revesting estate in mortgagor, under the Trustee Act, 1850. Mr Holmes appeared to support the petition, and after his addressing the Court for some hours, his Honor took tiine to consider his decision.