DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1977, 25 June 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

OHBISTOHUBOH. Friday, June 25. - [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] lob’s trustees v bank op new south WAXES. This was a case heard on Tuesday, and in which judgment had been reserved.^ Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr Gamok for the defendants. His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiffs herein for £964 6a, with interest pursuant to undertaking. The case was governed by lt JEx -parte Jay”, Law Reports, O. Appeals, 694. What was done by the Bank was too late. It was done after an act of bankruptcy. The property seized not being after-acquired property rjvsdem generis, within the principle of the authorities, required entry ana reduction into possession before bankruptcy inspection of the registration of the bill of sale, and that not having been done within the meaning of Jay’s case, the Bank having only made an inventory, and done nothing to inform the servants of the mortgagor upon the station that they were then in a hostile position, the seizure and reduction into possession were incomplete before the completion of the bankruptcy—a fact that the Bank had delayed too long the assertion of their rights. With reference to the power of distress, under the Land Transfer Act, it did not avail the defendants, as such right only intended to enable a mortgagee to distrain upon a tenant or occupier for any arrears of rent due by any tenant or occupier, and he hardly thought that it could bo seriously contended that it applied to authorise a distress upon the goods of a mortgagor. Mr Garrick sought the opinion of the Court as to the question of distress. His Honor replied that distress could only be for rent due by the occupier. The question of the amount for which judgment should be given was then decided, on the valuation of Mr Matson—namely, for £965 6s. In reply to Mr Garrick, His Honor held in reference to the entry and seizure, that had the bank been in possession sufficient time, either to remove the goods, or to give notice to all persons on the property that they were in possession adverse to the mortgagor, the bank would have been entitled to retain the property irrespective of the question of registration. The Court then rose.