SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 661, 2 August 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. Tuesday, August 1. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston ] His Honor sat in the Court Chambers at 11 a.m. HOENEMAN (APPELLANT) V WALTON (RESPONDENT). This was an appeal under the 94th section of the Debtors and Creditors Act, which is as follows:—“If the creditors shall refuse such order of discharge, and the debtor shall be dissatisfied with such refusal, he may within fourteen days after the passing of the special resolution refusing such order of discharge appeal to the Court, and the Court shall be at liberty either to confirm the special resolution of the creditors or reverse the same, and decide that the order of discharge be granted.” Mr Joynt appeared for the appellant, Mr George Harper for the respondent. The facts of the case shortly set out were, that the creditors of the appellant declined to pass the liquidation resolution and discharge the bankrupt. Under the section above set out the appellant came to the Court for relief. Mr Joynt now applied on behalf of the appellant for an order of discharge. The grounds for not granting the order of discharge were six in number, and alleged tha: the debtor had been guilty of misdemeanours under the Fraudulent Debtors’ Act, 1875, by omitting to disclose full particulars of his property to his trustee, and had also obtained goods on credit which had been disposed of in a way not in the usual course of business. This case had been before His Honor at the June banco sittings, when the respondent and several other witnesses were examined. His Honor now gave judgment. He said after consultation with his brother judges by telegram and by letter the Court was of opinion that under the Act it had no power to grant the discharge. The matter was solely in the hands of the creditors who alone had power to grant the discharge. The only way in which the Court could interfere would be if the creditors had acted wrongly on a point of law, or in its equitable jurisdiction if there was evidence of any tyrannical or unfair conduct on the part of the creditors towards the bankrupt in refusing his discharge. The legislature, so far as the Act went, did not give any discretion to the Court to interfere except in cases where the elements he had referred to existed. Uuder these circumstances the application of appellant would be refused.

Order : Application of appellant refused ; decision of creditors upheld.