ASHBURTON R.M. COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1744, 22 September 1879, Page 3

ASHBURTON R.M. COURT.

On Friday a claim for £l2 13» 63 was made by a man named Mclntyre from one named O'Neil, that being the amount of promissory note given to Mr E. J. Crisp to enable O'Neil to go through the bankruptcy court. A nonsuit was claimed by Mr Branson, who appeared for the defence, the argument being that the promissory note was given as collateral security, Mclntyre'fl claim being against O'Neil's estate, and defendant being protected by his order of discharge. Mr O'Reilly, counsel for plaintiff, stud the order was valueless, as it described the person to whom it was given as Arthur O'Neil, of , a debtor. It appeared, however, that the order was verified by the Supreme Court seal and signed by the Judge, and his Worship declared that this took the matter out of his hands, and as it was a document issued by a superior Court, even aasum■ing a mistake had occurred he, being an inferior officer, could not invalidate the document. Mr O'Reilly said under the Act of .1878 the Judge had no power to make an order of discharge in Chambers, and it was consequently so much waste paper. Mr Crisp, solicitor, proved he had obtained an order of discharge for defendant. The defendant O'Neil Baid he had filed at the request of Mclntyre, and had never promised to pay him the money now claimed. In 'Cross - examination, Mclntyre seemed unusually reticent, and Mr Branson warned plaintiff's counsel that if witness were pressed as to whether he had received money from Mclntyre, he should be forced to put .questions implicating both plaintiff and defendant. Defendant allowed plaintiff had got a horse from him two months before his insolvency, and Mr Branson then asked his Worship to tell witness not to answer questions which would render him liable to a criminal prosecution. His Worship did as Mr Branson requested, at the same time •aying ho did not know if witness had not

already rendered himself liable to be prosecuted by hia creditor*. After an altercation between counsel, O'Neil stated, in answer to Mr Branson, that Mclntyre had asked him to put in his sohedule more than the amount he owed him, but that he had not done so. After a little further evidence, his Worship dismissed the case, stating it ought never to have been brought into Court. Mr O'Beilly said he should bring it again.