MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2385, 24 November 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHEISICHUEOE Wednesday, November 23. [Before G. L. Mellish, Eaq., B.M.] OiTiL Oases.—Drone's Trustee v Mc--Olatohie and Mcintosh, olaim £96. Mr Garrick appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Thomas for defendants. This'was an action bronght under the clauses of the Bankruptcy Act, which prohibit a person near insolvency transferring any of bis property to any creditor in preference of the general body of oreditors. Mr Hargreaves, the trustee, deposed that one Gerhard Crone, a coal and wood dealer and retail grocer, trading at Addington, was sued by witness for a debt, who got judgment. After that Crone went to witness, who, after hearing a statement, advised him to call his creditors together forthwith. This was done early in September last, and witness was appointed trustee. On examining the affairs of Orone he found that in the middle of August the bankrupt had sold to fendants two horses, two carts, two sets of harness and some horse clothing which had cost £9O, that was, he was credited by defendants with £7O for those articles. Orone was then indebted to them in the Bum of £76 for a dishonored bill, and there was another bill of his to them for £46 coming due in the following month. Witness found, also, Orone had in the same way passed to them ten cords of firewood, and had authorised them to collect his book debts, which they were doing before and after the bankruptcy. Witness discovered that a similar transaction had been had with Sorensen and 00. in a quantity of groceries, but that firm, on the facts being represented to them, had at once given them up. Witness had an interview with Mr McOlatchie, and protested against defendants taking the chief portion of the assets to the detriment of the other creditors. The dobta were between £3OO and £4OO, and the assets left for division were worth about £SO. Defendants, after taking time to consider, declined to give up the horses, &c, and hence the present action. There were other bills of Crone's overdue and coming due at the time he filed. Gerhard Crone, on being examined, admitted nearly everything the previous witness had stated. He acknowledged having stated in his examination at the first meeting of creditors that Mr McClatohie had gone to him in the middle of August last, and said, " Our firm are your largest creditors ; you ought to see us secured above or before the other creditors." To whioh witness replied. "All right, tako what you please." Mr McOlatchie then asked for, and witness delivered the horses, &c, to him, being credited for £7O on that account. He also gave gosds to others of his oreditors about the same time, and thought by this means and by the disposal of the residue of his property to clear off all his debts and have a balance left to the good. However, on September Ist, his landlord, to whom he was indebted from £ll to £l2, dietrained for rent, and goods that were worth about £6O or £7O were sold to oover that debt, although at the same time the landlord owed him £l2 or thereabouts for groceries. He admitted having been drinking very hard for some time before his bankruptcy. He never doubted his solvonoy up to the time of the distraint. He had sold the goods to defendants voluntarily ; it was a bona fide transaction between them. Mr Molntyre, one of defendants, stated that finding Orone backward in meeting his engagements to them, they issued a summons for the amount of the dishonored bill before spoken of, on which Orone of his own accord offered the horses to them, at a price he fixed himself, in satisfaction of his debt. Defendant had no reason to suppose that Orone could not then pay everybody, and have a surplus left. They were in want of the horses and carts, and took them, paying n fair price for thorn. Mr fiwart, a grocer, deposed that he had valued the stock, book debts, &o. of Orone with defendants in in the middle of August, and he thought him perfectly solvent. At ttat time Crone owed him £2B. He now owed him 18*. He had taken goods in satisfaction of the balance of his claim. The goods he took were after, wards sold at auction and fetched £l3 or £l4. In the course of the examination Mrs Orone gave evidence, and all the other witnesses spoke as to the irregular habits of and negleot of business by the bankrupt. Mr Thomas addressed the Benoh for the defendants, contending that his clients had acted in good faith, and had exercised no pressure on Orone. Mr Garrick replied at some length, reviewing the whole circumstances, and claiming a judgment for the plaintiff. His worship said that defendants had, by taking away the horses, &c, deprived Orone of any chanoe he otherwise had of paying his debts, they in fact closed his business altogether and compelled him to become bankrupt with scarcely anything to satisfy the other creditors. Judgment was for £7O, the value allowed for the things by defendants, with

costs, solicitor's fee £3 3j, and expenses of two witnesses, 17s 6i. Inwood v Gate, claim for recovery of a mare and foal, or £2O their value. Mr Stringer for plaintiff. Mr Holmes for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he sold the mare whh foal at foot to defendant, on condition that they were to be paid for in three months or, failing payment in that time, they were to be returned, and plaintiff was to pay defendant for their grazing at the rate of Is 61 per week. When the timo expired the money had not been paid and plaintiff by a stratagem got possession of the mare, but, subsequently defendant got her away again, and plaintiff brought the present action. Defendant's case was that he bought the mare as stated, and at once broke her in, thereby considerably increasing her value. Just before the three months expired, he offered to pay the money, but plaintiff said he did not want it then; when he did he would ask for it. Defendant was, and always had been, since it I became duo, willing to pay the money, which, 1 however, had not been demanded by plaintiff. Four witnesses were called, who substantially corroborated defendant's statement. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said he believed plaintiff's story to be untrue j that it was, in short, an unmitigated falsehood. Judgment for defendant, with costs of Court, solicitor's fee £1 Is, and expenses of two witnesses 13s. —Rowland v Short, £l2, was au action for the recovery of a hen or her value, £lO, and £2 damages for her detention. Mr Stringer appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed that defendant asked him for the loan of his pure-bred Spanish hen, to exhibit at the last A. and P. show. He had one of his own to show, but the judge of poultry had "a down" on him, and it was arranged that the parties should exchange for the purposes of exhibition. Both birds were shown, plaintiff's hen taki g a first, and defendant's a third prize. After the show, defendant refused to return the hen, alleging that plaintiff had given it to him. Two witnesses deposed to hearing conversations whioh bore out plaintiff's statement. The hen was stated to be worth £5, and her eggs 21s per dozen. Defendant stated that shortly before the show, plaintiff called on him and asked him to "get up" his bird for exhibition. This defendant refused to do, as he had one for exhibition himself. Finally, defendant said, it was arranged that he should keep plaintiff's hen, giving in lieu some of her eggs and the loan of a rooßter. In answer to questions, defendant described the process of " getting up " fowls for exhibition. He said, with regard to this particular one, ho spent fifteen hours plucking the feathers out of her face. He had to wash, sponge, and powder it for several nights in succession, besides administering stimulants to bring out its oolor, &e. He got a prize of 153 for her, and sold half a dozen of her eggs for 10s 6d. His Worship said defendant told a very improbable story. It was clear that the hen must be restored. Judgment was for plaintiff for £lO, to be reduced to nil if the bird was given back within forty-eight hours; the claim for damages was not allowed ; defendant to pay costs, solicitor's fee £1 Is, and expenses of two witnesses 10s. —ln Reynolds v Jackman, a claim for 17s 65, laborer's wages, judgment was for defendant with costs.—Judgments went by default for plaintiffs with costs in Bank of New Zealand v Healey, £59 15s 10d; Brittin v Heshp, £1 ; Swacston v Swanson, £1 6s ; Brown and Lewin v Harrop, £l3 4s 6d ; and Maling and Co. v Catlin, £6 3s. —Saxton v Bowdon (for judgment), and Sampson v Wilcox, were adjourned till November 30th; Hutchinson v George, till December 2nd.