SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4111, 1 May 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY.]

Monday, May 1, (Before Mr Justice Williams.)

. Examinations. —The cases of the 1' llowing bankrupts wore adjourned till next rittimj day : —Alexander Souter, Charles Higgins Edward Christopher George, Edward Thomas Wing, and Peter Young. Final Order. —A final order of discharge was mated to Walter Kendall, for whom Mr stamper, jun,, appeared. Be Baldwin P. Stohr. Mr Nation, for the trustee in this estate, applied that the proof of a debt of bankrupt to David btohr, his son, might be expunged. Mr. Stamper, jun , appeared for bankrupt,-David John Stohr said he was bankrupt’s son, and a butcher by trade. The proof of debt produced was made by witness. The amount was L 195, and it was owing for wages at LI per week from March, 1870, to November, 1873, for work done as clerk and rider-out for bankrupt. In 1870 witness was sixteen years old, and he lived with his father and mother, getting his board and lodging, clothing, and schooling. He attended a day school all the time h® was working for his father, but used often, to be absent from school for half a day at a time. Witness’s mother paid for his schooling. An agreement was made between witness and bankrupt before he started work that he should get LI per week, but bankrupt never paid him anything as wages. Witness never asked for any; he did not require money while living with his parents. In 1873 witness left Dunedin and went to Wellington, but even then did not ask bankrupt for money, or say anything about a claim for wages. He first put in a claim in February last, when making the proof of debt against

bankrupt s estate. This was on returning from \\ ellington. He went through bankrupt s books, and found he was insolvent. Witness then bought the business, giving bankrupt L 5, and wiping off a debt of LlO or The claim for L 195 had been put in previously. The usual rate of wages for a rider-out was Ll per week, and witness used also to keep the books. Bankrupt kept a day-book and a ledger, but no cash-book. Witness occasionally got pocket-money from bankrupt—a few shillings at a time.—Crossexamined ; Witness never knew that his father was unable to pay’ his claim; he was not aware of it till he returned from Wellington. It was understood that witness was to go into partnership iu the business with bankrupt when he left school. Witness had been paid a preferential claim out of the estate, amounting to L 26, for six months’ wages. - Re-examined : There was no arrangement as to a partnership, but bankrupt had the idea in hia head. The partnership was to wipe off the debt owing for wages accruing while witness was at school.—Mr Nation submitted that, after hearing the evidence, his Honor should expunge the proof of debt. It was against all reason that the creditors of the estate should lose the amount of such a claim as this.—His Honor said ho had no doubt the proof should be struck out. It was two years and a-half from the end of the period when David Stohr was working for his father that he put in a claim for wages—six years had elapsed without his asking once for money; and then, after putting in a claim for L 195, he gives his father L 5, and wipes off a debt of LlO or Lls. The evidence given was altogether inconsistent with the existence of a debt of L 195 for wages, and the proof of debt must be expunged with costs out of the estate.—Mr Nation said he had another but rather worse application of a similar nature to make in the same estate. It was that the proof of debt of L 54 for wages due to J. F. Stohr be expunged.—J. F. Stohr, another son of bankrupt, said he was now employed by a working jeweller. The proof of debt produced was made by him. Bankrupt owed him L 54 for wages, at the rate of 15s per week from December 7, 1873. Witness was between thirteen and fourteen years old in that month, and he used to ride out and give assistance in the shop. He was living with his parents, and got from them his board and lodging, clothing, pocket money, and schooling. Bankrupt gave him a box worth 15s the first week he worked for him, but witness never got auy wages afterwards. He never asked bankrupt for money till he sent in the claim produced. Cross-examined : The claim was exclusive of a charge for board and lodging.—His Honor said it was exactly a similar case—there was never a mention of wages. The proof must be expunged, with costs out of the estate,— Mr Nation applied that David John Stohr be ordered to refund the sum of L2fj, paid him as a preferential claim for wages.—His Honor granted the application—the money must be refunded to the estate.

IN BANCO. National Bank of New Zealand (appellants) v. William Christie (respondents). —Appeal from the District Court of Dunedin. His Honor delivered judgment in this case, saying that he did not think the direction of the learned Judge (in the original case) that absence without leave did not necessarily amount to being absent improperly within the meaning of the agreement was a misdirection. The fact of a man being absent without leave might be very strong evidence of improper absence, but whether or not it was conclusive evidence was for the jury, and all that the learned Judge told them was that as a matter of law it was not necessarily conclusive. As to the other direction objected to, the learned Judge had simply given his opinion on a matter of lact, and made no attempt to withdraw any fact from the jury. His Honor thought the learned Judge was right in refusing to direct the jury on the question of damages in the way he was requested by the appellant. In conclusion his Honor said he thought the evidence showed that if the dismissal was -wrongful the respondent was entitled to three months* salary, and accordingly that the proper direction to the jury would have been that the damages should be for the amount of such salary, less whatever amount the plaintiff had received from the bank for salary for any period subsequent to the date of his dismissal. Under those circumstances it became unnecessary to consider whether the conditions of appeal had been complied with. The appeal would be dismissed, with costs.

Thomson (appellant) v, Patten (respondent).—Appeal from the decision of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Arrowtown. His Honor delivered judgment in this case. He said appellant was clearly not liable at law for the debt in question in the original case. The appeal would bo allowed, with costs.

Stamper v. Turnbull and Others.— DemurTer; In this case his Honor decided that the demurrer be allowed, with costs, Cargill and Another (appellants) v. Mervyn (respondent.)— Appeal from the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Roxburgh. In this case his Honor delivered judgment' the appeal being allowed, with costs. * Regina v. Jones. Argument of rule nisi for quo warranto. Mr Stout appeared to support the rule ; Mr G. B. Barton, with him Mr F. R. Chapman, to move the rule absolute. [heft sitting.]