SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3561, 22 July 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS,

Tuesday, July 21. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.)

LEARY V. HUNT AND ANOTHER. The action was brought by R. H. Leary, as trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of .Thomas Hunt, firmer, late of Oamaru, against the said T. Hunt, Sarah his wife! and James Bee. Mr James Smith for the plaintiff, Mr Stout for the defendants. The object of the action was to set aside a deed of settlement of forty acres of land executed by T. Hunt on the 23rd of last year, which, it was alleged by plaint ff had been made with the intention of defeating the just claims of his creditors. James Bee was necessarily included in the defence as trustee under the deed, on behalf of Sarah Hunt and her children. In the month of March, prior to executing the deed, the defendant Hunt owed Grave and MTn’tosh, of Oamaru, L 225 15s lOd, for which he gave a promissory note payable three months after date, and after the execution of the deed he became further indebted to the amount of Ll3O on a bill due the 14th September following. Fading to meet those bdls on the 13th October, 1873, Grave and MTntosh obtained judgment against Hunt for L4OO 5s 6d in the Supreme Court, Canterbury ; but, prior to that time, on the 18 oh October, Hunt had filed a declaration of insolvency in the Unbrict Court, Timaru. On the 31st he was adjudged a bankrupt, and his assets were sworn by him to have been, on the 23rd of April, the date of the execu! tion of the deed, L 240. JSio assets had been received by the trustee, nor had any dividend been paid to his creditors. The plaintiff therefore asked that the deed might be declared fraudulent and void, and that it, with all documents relating to the land, might be given up and the land sold. ’ The defendants pleaded a general denial of the allegations by the plaintiff. On the issues, the jury, after the evidence, found that at the time of the execution of the deed by Hunt he was indebted to certain persons, among whom were Grave and MTntosh.That he increased his liability to that firm by LI3O, as stated by counsel; that they recovered judgment against him, and that after signing his declaration of insolvency, the plaintiff became permanent trustee. That no assets had been received by him as trustee in bankruptcy, nor bad any dividend been paid, but that Hunt did not become insolvent and unable to pay his creditors immediately after the execution ef the deed, nor was it executed for the purpose or intent to delay, hinder, or defraud his creditors.

Wednesday, July 22.

STOKES V. BKQG AND ANOTHER,

The plaintiff was George Stokes, of Great King street, and the defendants wore A. (J. Segg and John Dane, auctioneer. Mr E. Cook appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Macassey for the defendant Davie, and Mr Harris for the defendant Begg. The action arose out of the wreck of the Surat. The declaration set forth that on *r about the sth January, 1874, the defendants converted to their own use, or wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of the use and possession of yarious articles of wearing

and jewellery, of the value of LBS 5s 2d. 1 here was a second count enumerating other goods, of which it was alleged the plaintiff had been deprived, of the value of i.90 2s 6d ; and the plaintiff claimed to recover L2OO. The defendants denied all the material allega ions in the plaintiff’s declaration. The witnesses called for the plaintiff were George btok.es (plaintiff), Henry Woodcock, John Edwin Kobinsou, James MTndoo, John Booth, James Fountain, B Calverley' James Haigh, John Ontred, John Davie. ’ M r Macassey raised tw« nonsuit points—namely, that the right of possession during ■January, February, and March was in the salvors, the plaintiff, therefore, was prevented from succeeding; also, that there was no act of conversion relied upon, other than that of mere sale, and the sale could not have the effect of depriving the plaintiff of his right to the goods. The plaintiff was nonsuited, with leave reserved to him to move to set aside the nonsuit if it was thought his lienor was wrong as to the law. The Court then adjourned.