DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2120, 9 December 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, Dkoembbe 8, ( [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] ] TEUSTEB IN THE BANKRUPTCY OP J. HINB AND A. OSBOBNB. _ I Mr Izard for the plaintiff, Mr Stringer for 1 defendant. 1 This case was called on for judgment, re- I served from Monday, when the evidence was 1 taken. ~ . 1 It was agreed that his Honor 8 could give : the same judgment touching the affidavits as would be given in the Supreme Court. His Honor then delivered judgment as follows ; —ln this case the question remaining to be decided was whether the bill of sale could be taken as legally registered, or be put in evidence, in a case in the Supreme Court, inasmuch as the affidavit verifying its execution contained an erasure in the jurat; another, not initialled, in the affidavit itself; had also a blank in the affidavit itself, in one of the places where the name of the mortgagor should have been inserted; and lastly, was sworn by the mortgagor before the solicitor who prepared the bill of sale. It was urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that these defects were fatal, under the rules 516, 518 and 251 of the Supreme Court, and further that the blank _in the affidavit wholly prevented it from being in conformity with the Bill of Sales Act. On the other side, is was urged that the regulce generate of the Act of 1856 only applied to affidavits sworn in the course of a ease, or in support of a motion, and not to formal affidavits required for registration. There is, no doubt, some color given to the opposite contention by the fact that these affidavits are filed with the registrar of the Supreme Court; but, after a careful consideration of the Supreme Court Act, 1860, and the rules themselves, I have come to the conclusion that the affidavits referred to in the above quoted rules mean only those that are made in any action, suit, or other proceeding in the Supreme Court, and consequently that the said rules do not apply to verifying affidavits sworn for the purpose of registration under the Bills of Sale Act. With respect to the blank left in the affidavit, the clause in which it occurs ruBS thus : “ That I was present and did see James Hine . . . execute the said bill of sale, and that the said (blank) at the time of the execution resided,” &o. This is merely a clerical error, and it seems to us that the words “ the said ” may fairly be taken as equivalent to the word “he.” No one could possibly be misled by this hiatus, I, therefore, give judgment for the defendant. EOED, NEWTON AND MABSDBN V CONNOLLY. Mr Harper appeared on behalf of the plaintiff ; Mr Loughnan for the defendant. A claim of £SO, rent due for the quarter ending November Ist, 1880, on premises which the plaintiff Marsden leased to defendant, and subsequently mortgaged to the other plaintiffs, Nord and Newton. Defendant’s answer to the claim was that the amount sued for had already been paid. Counsel for plaintiff amended the claim so as to make it simply for balance due on account of rent. . , A good deal of evidence was given with particular reference to a post dated cheque given by a man named Vaughan to the dei fendant, and paid by him to the plaintiffs, i which was dishonored upon presentation. The ■ amount of the cheque was the £SO sued for in i the present action. ■ Counsel having addressed the Court, I His Honor reserved judgment to consult t authorities. , , , The Court then adjourned till 11 o’clock j this morning.