SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 209, 10 September 1901, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly.)

Yesterday. IN BANKRUPTCY

At the Supreme Court His Honor Mr Justice Conolly held a sitting in bankruptcy to hear applications for discharge. R. W. Wells—Mr Lysnar (instructed by Mr Chrisp) appeared. —His Honor said the report of the Assignee was satisfactory, and an order of discharge was made.

George Paulgrain.—Mr L. Rees, appeared for bankrupt.—His Honor said in this case also the report was favorable.— No opposition ; order made. David Reid.—Mr Lysnar (instructed by Mr Chrisp) appeared for debtor, and Mr Nolan appeared for Messrs Holden Bros, to oppose. —His Plonor asked that the bankrupt should be examined, and after this had been done Judge Conolly said that the case was one which was frequently seen, where the affair seems from beginning to end a mistake. A man holding a capital of £IOO takes land for which he undertakes to pay upwards of £3OO a year, and, having no sheep to put upon it, had to got the Loan Company to put 1000 sheep on it for him. He starts with a debt of £250 and a liability of £3OO a year for rent. How would it be possible that a run of that dimensions could pay a rent of £3OO a year, and also support the bankrupt and his family ? It seemed absurd to attempt such a thing; but they had these tilings continually. The people went on, probably very often heavily in debt, year after year, and hoped that a good time would come. They knew very well that sheep-farming, as far as tho wool was concerned, was a total loss, although there had been a profit on the sale of sheep for freezing. No advantage would arise by deferring the discharge of tho bankrupt. The bankrupt had saved £SO out of his salary of £l5O a year for tho rent. He had now no situation, and no money or effects. Discharge granted.

WILLIAM OSWALD SKKET. Mr Lincoln Rees appeared in support of the application for discharge, and Mr DeLautour to urge that it be postponed. His Honor said that the application seemed to him too premature, and after argument it was decided to adjourn the application until the next sitting of the Court, to be held in January. AN APPEAL. The appeal case of Fanny Stevens v. J. B. Adams was also taken yesterday. This was an appeal from the Magistrate’s decision non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground of there being no proof of presentment of the promissory note sued on. Mr Jones appeared for the appellant, and Mr DeLautour for the respondent. Mr DeLautour took the preliminary point that a non-suit was not a final determination on which an appeal could bo made. There was against him a decision by tho Chief Justice, but he submitted the Court of Appeal eases which ho quoted and which had not been called to Sir Robert Stout’s attention, were the other way. Mr Jones contended that if there was anything in the objection it had been waived by the stating of the case. He was proceeding to argue the point when His Honor said he would decide the objection in Mr Jones’ favor, and called upon him to proceed with his argument on the case. Mr Jones said the note sued on was in the ordinary form, and the question for decision was, was the maker of such a noto entitled to presentment ? By section 87 of the Bills ;of Exchange Act, 1883, presentment was not necessary, except tho place of presentment was mentioned in the body of the note. He produced authorities to show that in the ordinary form the place of presentment was mentioned at the foot or margin of the note. He argued that in such a case presentment at tho bank or to the maker was unnecessary so far as the maker was concerned, though it would be otherwise iu tho case of an indorser. Mr DeLautour conceded that presentment at the bank might not be necessary, but contended that there must bo presentation to the maker, and he quoted soction 52 of tho Act. There must either be notice of dishonor or presentment to tho maker before action is brought. He pointed out the inconvenience that would arise if the maker had money in the bank, and tho promissory noto were not presented. His Honor held that the placo of presentment was only mentioned by way.ol memorandum on tho note, and that being the case neither presentment nor notice of dishonor was necessary. Ho would therefore allow the appeal. After discussion as to the form of judgment, the appeal was allowed, with .£lO costs, and a new trial of the action in tho lower court ordered. IN BANCO. H eni Kara and another v. Hugh Joseph Finn and another.—This was a motion to obtai n an order directing that the bill of costs and charges filed by the Hugh Joseph Finn, be removed from off the file of the Court, and that the defendant should file the bill of costs contemplated by the Judge and by the Court, amounting to £390 6s 3d. Mr E.. A. Rees appeared in support of the motion, and defendant in person. Mr Finn contended that the motion did not comply with the rule providing that copies of a motion should be filed at least throe clear days before. His Honor upheld the objection, and dismissed the motion without costs.