DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2424, 12 January 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Thtjbsday, Januaby 12. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] TRUSTEE OF GEO. HOOPEB V S. PABKEB. This was an action to recover the sum of £2OO for alleged wrongful conversion of the property of a bankrupt. Mr Raphael appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Forwood for the defendant. Mr Forwood applied for an amendment of the plaint by the insertion of the name of the trustee. Mr Raphael had no objection, and the name of Thomas Brown Oraig was inserted in the plaint. Mr Craig, who was the first witness called, deposed that he was legally appointed trustee

to the estate of George Hooper, bankrupt, who formerly carried on business in Christchurch as a watchmaker and jeweller. In cross-examination by Mr For wood, witness said he was never in possession of the property of the estate, because of the existence of a bill of sale, of which he was not previously aware.

George Hooper deposed that he carried on business as a watchmaker and jeweller in Christchurch for twelve months before ho filed in September last. He became indebted to Samuel Parkes, who was his father-in-law, in July, 1880, to the amount of £6O. In April, 1881, he also became indebted to him for £35, Parkes issued a writ against him for £95. Witness applied to have the proceedings stopped. Sent a telegram saying, “ Give bill of sale, on terms.” Parkes insisted on a bill of sale being given on his own terms, which wae done. [Bill of sale pat in.] At the time be gave the bill of sale the property included in it was in his possession. It comprised nearly all he had. He only reserved to himself thejtools of his trade, to the value of £2O, which he know he was entitled to under the Bankruptcy Act. Ho gave the bill of sale beaause he wanted time. Would have been able to nay his other debts when they became due. Was sued for £37 9s by Mr L. E. Nathan. The warrant was returned marked “no effects, ” Was also sued by the “ Press” Company for £2O. Was not able to pay it at that time. Should have said he could have paid his other debts if he had time, Mr Parkes stayed execution when witness gave him the bill of sale. He did not know witness owed money to the other creditors. Was indebted to Mr Parkes for cash lent £95, and for bills endorsed £645. The latter amount was devoted to the purchase of stock. After be took I possession of his business a robbery took place at the shop, when £6OO worth of goods were stolen. The robbery took place sometime before the bill of sale was given, but after the money was borrowed from his father-in-law. After he gave the bill of sale there was sufficient to pay his other creditors. He could not pay Nathan and the “Press” Company, because he had not the cash at the time. About £l5O worth of stock was sent from the shop to Wellington ; the stock sold, which was worth £450, realised £2OO by auction. His father-in-law carried on the business for some time, and sold goods to the value of £IOO. There were book debts to the amount of £2OO. His debts at the time he filed amounted to about £9OO. Cross-examined—The immediate cause of his filing was the issue of a judgment summons against him by L. E. Nathan. He could not have bought bis business but for Mr Parkes having endorsed his bills. Witness told him that his own family would assist him, and that if ho required it witness would give him security over his stock. Expected at that time that his father and his grandfather would see him through. The former promised him £IOO shortly before the bill of sale was given. The money was to be devoted to paying one of Mr Parkes’ bills, but it did not come forward. That was the reason why Mr Parkes pressed him for security, Mr Parkes did not take possession under the bill of sale until ten days afterwards. He took possession then on account of one of the other creditors putting a distress warrant into the shop. Between the giving of the bill of sale and the issue of the distress warrant Mr Parkes had advanced him a further sum of £3O to assist witness, and enable him to carry on. At the time be gave the bill of sale he owed abont £l5O to other creditors besides Mr Parkes. His father-in-law was sued for one of the bills which be had endorsed amounting to £l4O, and bad to pay it. The other bills were not yet due. Mr Parkes paid about £SO in connection with the business after he took possession. Samuel Parkes, the defendant, deposed that ho resided in Wellington. He heard of the robbery at his son-in-law’s shop, in Christchurch, and as some of the bills were coming due, he determined, on the advice of his solicitor, to press for security for his debt. Cross-examined—He was liable for a large sum of money, and as a matter of prudence he thought it better to have security. Arthur Beauchamp, auctioneer, deposed to having sold household effects and stock belonging to Hooper to the amount of £220 or £230. He received his instructions both from Mr Parkes’ son and Hooper. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Porwood submitted that the plaintiff should be nonsuited. There was no evidence that the bill of sale was fraudulent, but, on the contrary, there was proof of valuable consideration and of suretyship, and the fact of pressure having been used showed the bona tides of the transaction. Even assuming that the bill of sale was bad, it must first be set aside by a competent Court. There was no svidence of any conspiracy on the part of the defendant to defraud the other creditors. Mr Raphael replied at length. His Honor reserved judgment. This was the last case on the Hat, and the Court adjourned.