SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2283, 27 July 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. Tuesday, July 26. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor sat in the Court Chambers at II a.m. BB STEPHEN LAWRENGE. The debtor in person applied for his discharge. His Honor made the order. BE JAMES THOBNE. In this case Mr Joyce obtained an order for the discharge of the debtor. EE PBTEB OAMBEON, DECEASED. Mr Joyce applied herein for probate to W D. Cameron, the sole executor named. His Honor granted the order. EE WM. PATTINBON, A DBBTOE. In this case a summons was asked to issue calling upon John Pattinson to show cause why he should not deliver up certain goods alleged to belong to the bankrupt to the trustee, to be sold for the benefit of the creditors. Mr Spaokman appeared in support of the order. Mr McOonuel contra, and to show cause. The case was that the debtor had sold just before filing all his stock-in-trade, &0,, which was valued at £2OO. The trustee on examination elicited these facts, and upon this the summons was applied for and issued. His Honor pointed out that the Court could not upon mere suggestions try a question of fraud or no fraud, particularly as the affidavits on the other side denied that there had been any fraud, but that the sale had been perfectly bona fide, Mr MoOonnel submitted that Mr Spaokman now came to the Court to obtain an order to cover to cover an illegal act, viz., the entering on his client’s premises and taking away the goods. Mr Spaokman asked his Honor to grant an order for the detention of the goods until a suit could be instituted. His Honor said that the question in the case of fraud would come before the Resident Magistrate’s Court. He could not make the order for the sale of the goods as asked by Mr Spaokman. Mr Spaokman submitted that the Resident Magistrate’s Court was not the proper tribunal to decide the case. His Honor was decidedly of opinion that the Resident Magistrate’s Court was quite competent to try the case. Mr Spaokman said he would, if Mr MoOonnel agreed, allow the case to go to the District Court. Mr McOonnel declined to make any arrangement whatever. He simply came there to oppose the order. His Honor should decline to make the order. No order. Costs, on the application of Mr MoOonnel, were granted against the trustee. BE WILL OF DAVID LEWIS, DECEASED. This was a case in which the direction of his Honor was asked as to the construction of one of the clauses of the will, with reference to the power of the executors to grant leases. The question was, whether the word “ minority ” meant when the son of the testator

arrived at twenty-one, twenty-five, or thirty years of age, all of woich were mentioned in the will and codicils.

Mr Garrick now appeared to ask for directions, and quoted the following oases —Milroy v Milroy 14 8., 48 ; Madison v Chapman, 4 Kayo and Johnson; Fraser v Fraser, 1 N.R. ■l3O [cited in Theobald on W ;l ls.] His Honor held that the power of the trustees to lease and manage the estates held up to the attaining by the son of the testator to the ago of thirtyjyeors. BAIBD AND OTITEBB (APPELLANTS) T GODBX AND OTHBBS (bkstondbnxs.) Inis was an appeal from the judgment of the Resident Magistrate at Timaru. Mr Baird appeared in person. Mr Spaokman for the respondents, and submitted that notice of the appeal case should bo given to tho respondents by the appellants. Ha had been instructed that the money paid into Court had been taken out by the respondents on the ground that the requisite notice had not been given, Mr Baird submitted that the appellants had no means of ascertaining the date of tho c;'e, so that they were prevented from being able to give tho notice. Besides this tho money was taken out of Court before tho five days within which tho case was supposed to be transmitted to tho Registrar. His Honor said that as Mr Baird would probably like to make some affidavits ho would allow the case to stand over. Mr Baird said he had been entirely misled by the letter of tho Resident Magistrate forwarding the case, and instructing him to set tho same down.

His Honor said, after consideration, he was afraid that on the question of notice Mr Baird had no standing. Ho was very sorry indeed for it, but it was so Mr Baird said !hat ho desired to express a very strong opinion that tb's had been an exceedingly shevp piece of practice. His Honor said that this might be so. Ho should always discourage anything like sharp practice, but he might say that ho was very sorry for Mr Baird.

Mr Baird asked his Honor whether if on affidavit the bill could bo ordersd by his Honor to be taxed. H's Honor said ho was afraid that where a biU had been paid under a judgment it could not bo taxed. Appeal dismissed without costs.