THIS DAY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 49, 30 January 1885, Page 2

THIS DAY.

This case was resumed this morning. Mr Hankins in opening the case for the defence said that the gist of the action was that the defendants had been negligent in keeping in repair a certain bridge. For the defence it was intended to be urged that in consequence of a very high flood and that the damage done to plaintiff was the result of the act of God A heavy flood washed away the bridge, with reference to the neglect it was intended to be shown for the defence that there had been none of the part of the defendants and he (Mr Hankins) would ask the Judge to direct the jury to return a verdict for the defendants if they had any doubt as to the question of neglect and also that the Corporation were only bound to keep the bridge in such reasonable repair as a prudent man would be expected to do. It would be shown that

there was an extraordinary high flood which could not have been expected by defendant against which they could no have taken more precaution than they did by repairing the bridge from time to time under the direction of the Corporation Engineer. The bridge had with stood every heavy flood before and it was never suspected that it would not have withstood any water which would come down the stream. Evidence would be brought before the jury to show that there had been nothing for years past like the flood in September last and that the repairs made from time to time were quite sufficient to keep the bridge in its position under ordinary circumstances and he (Mr Hankins) thought that when the jury had heard the evidence they would come to no other conclusion than that it was irresistible to exonerate the defendants. Samuel Goodbehere, solicitor, deposed : In February last there was a very heavy rain fall greater than that which fell in September last, the flood at Feilding was not so great in February as in September. I do not know that a quantity of rainage had been diverted into the Makino stream. Charles Green deposed that he was roadman to the Feilding Corporation. He repaired the bridge in the beginning of 1882, also repaired it in August 1883. The bridge was under his supervision and he had no reason to apprehend that it would withstand any flood, but at the flood in September he thought the bridge would go and it would have taken all the ratepayers to stop it. Never saw saw such a flood for the last six years. [Left Sitting.] YESTERDAY. IN BANKRUPTCY. Re. G. S. Hadfield—Application for discharge. Mr Hankins for the bankrupt. Order granted. The Deputy Official Assignee asked that the bankruptcy be declared closed. Order made. Re. H. T. Polinsky—Order closing backruptcy made. Re, H. J. Lloyd—Mr Baker applied for the bankrupt's discharge. Order granted. The Deputy Official Assignee applied that the bankrupt might be ordered to contributetowards the cost of the bankruptcy. Bankrupt not being in attendance application deferred till after the jury case. J. H. Topping—Mr Baker appeared for the bankrupt, who came up for his public examination. No creditors attended to oppose or examine the bankrupt. Mr Baker asked for an order, declaring the bankrupt to nave passed his examination and for an allowance to be made out of the assets for his support. The Assignee stated that the assets would realise about £500. Order made declaring bankrupt's examination closed and that 25s per week be paid to the bankrupt until next sitting of the court when application for discharge to be made. Mr Hawkins made application that proof of Henry Gardes of £51 13s 4d wages, and also of £32 10s, three months wages as perferential claim be allowed. Henry Gardes sworn gave evidence in support of his application in the course of which he stated that he had only received about £1 3s per week from the bankrupt all the time he had been with him and it was agreed that he should get £2 10s per week. There was some conversation about a partnership, but it was conditional upon the bankrupt keeping sober. The witness was to have a house rent free. He got the land and transferred it to the bankrupt who supplied the timber for the house. The bankrupt had inserted the property in his schedule and the witness was now turned out of the house. The bankrupt never consulted him about becoming insolvent. The court granred an order admitting the claim as asked for. Re John Poad— Mr Baker appeared for the bankrupt. Mr J. H. Hankins opposed the continuance of the bankruptcy in its present form, by reason of the petition of adjudication including the name of James Brazier. Mr Hankins opposed on his own behalf and for several creditors. Mr Baker argued that Poad had an implied authority to bind his partner by petition in bankruptcy as had been done in the matter. His Honor said that he would not trouble to hear opposing counsel. It was quite clear that one partner could not file a petition in bankruptcy for another. The matter before the court was a mullity. Mr Hankins said that the matter had been brought before the court in its anomalous form through the crass ignorance of the bankrupt's solicitor. His Honor said he must annul the bankruptcy. It was altogether irregular and unwarrantable. The backruptcy proceedings in this matter would be therefore annulled with costs against the bankrupt, £4 2s. The court then adjourned to next day, (30th Jan.)