RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3768, 22 March 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, March 22. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., M.R.) CIVIL OASES. Judgment was given by default in the following cases with costs Oliver and Ulph v. David Spence, of Balclutba, claim Lll for goods supplied ; Joseph Davies v. John O’Connor, L2 2s for I oard and lodging; James Patterson v. John M‘Dougall, L2 15s 6d for board duo and money lent. Gregg and Co. v. Walls.—ln this case, a judgment summons, plaintiffs did not appear, and Mr Chapman, for defendant, submitted that his client having been adjudicated a bankrupt it took him out of the jurisdiction of the Court.—The case was struck out. A. and J. M’Farlane v. John Hector M'Kay, butcher, Kensington.—This was a fraud summons. Mi Haggitt appeared for plaintiff and Mr Stewart defended. Mr Stewart mentioned that defendant had filed a declaration of insolvency, but judging from what had • fallen from the Bench his Worship held that the mere filing did not debar him from exercising his jurisdiction.—His Worship replied that the law was quite clear on the subject. If fraud was incurred, then he could punish accordingly. —Mr Stewart said that if his Worship put that interpretation on it, it was quite contrary to the bankruptcy laws.—His Worship thought the bankruptcy laws now altogether altered; imprisonment for debt was now abolished. r l he law of debtor and creditor was now iu a most deplorable muddle, there was no doubt of that. A man could not be sent to gaol and punished to enforce payment, but simply if it was proved that there had been fraud in incurring the debt.—Mr Stewart; Presuming that ruling to be correct, if a man incurs a debt fraudulently, and pays the money just before coming into .Court, your Worship cannot interfere, and he thereby escapes i -unishmenfc by doing an illegal act. — His Worship : I am not responsible for that.-'-Defendant was t l . e «. unmeet at long*!i by Mr JLisrgUt, :•:id. that he rccoivu! Lilt! f. r nis t .-<• .t Kensington. In all he got L2o7> and he now owed between L2OO and L3OO, He filed his

schedule on the 16th Inst. He bad sold some sheep to Mr George Wilson for L 42, and twr horses and a cart for Ll2. Amongst othe. amounts, he had paid to Mr Stewart, hit lawyer, L 23 10s for getting his wife’s marriage lines from Sydney; to Mrs Reid, of Reusing tonn LSI, amount of an lOU which he gavt her twelve months ago for cash lent; and ti Mrs Stark, another neighbor, L 43, for an lOU for money lent two months ago. He (defendant) had been living, with Mrs Reid foi the past six weeks. He also gave her L2C on Monday last. Witness paid away the various debts about three days before filing his decla ration, and now bad no more money to pay to his other creditors. He' still owed Messj. Wright, Stephenson, and Co. L 66 13s 51, anc the N. Z. Mercantile Co. L3O oj. 'I heso ac counts were for goods to enable him to carry on his business.—Mr Haggitt considered it the clearest case of fraud which ever came before the Court. Defendant sells his property, which realises L3OB 10s, and makes away with the whole of it, to the detriment of Ms legitimate creditors—those from whom he got goods necessary to carry on his business. The only effect of his Worship’s could be that defendant would be sent to gaol: he could not be kept there. He considered it a gross shame that the law was in such a state that a man guilty of such conduct as that shown herein should be allowed to escape punishment.—His Worship had no doubt that defendant had acted improperly and in a fraudulent manner. He doubted very much whether the money said to have been paid to Mrs Reid was due to her; it appeared to him that it had .been given to her for their ultimate use._ .An order for defendant’s committal to prison for. six weeks was made.

Wright, Stephenson, and Go. v. J. H, M‘Kay.—Claim, L 66 13s 4d for goods sold. Judgment was given for plaintiffs, with costa.