IN BANKRUPTCY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 8, 9 January 1874, Page 2

IN BANKRUPTCY.

In re George Silcook, of Spring Grove, laborer.

a bankrupt

Mr Pitt appeared for Georaje Hopgood, a creditor of the bankrupt, and moved to make absolute an order nisi made by his Honor on the 28th November last on the application of Mr Pitt, calling on the bankrupt to shew cause why an order of discharge granted by the Registrar, in the absence of his Honor, should not be reviewed, and why the application for bankrupt's discharge then made should not be reheard, upontwo grounds: — 1. That the Registrar had no jurisdiction to make the order, inasmuch as the bankruptcy was opposed, of which the bankrupt and 'the Registrar had notice. 2. That the order was obtained on false evidence, by suppresDing evidence, and by fraud. The application was made under section 131 of" The Bankruptcy Act, 1867."

Mr Aoion Adams appeared for bankrupt to show cause, and read affidavits made by the bankrupt and his father, S. B. Silcock. It appeared from an affidavit made by Mr Pitt that, on the hearing of the application for discharge, the Registrar had received verbal notice that the bankruptcy was opposed, and that the Provisional Trustee in his report had also mentioned that he understood the bankruptcy was opposed. The Solicitor for the opposing creditor, understanding that the case was to be adjourned, did not appear, and tho Eegistiar, after waitiDg a quarter of an hour, granted the order of discharge. The affidavit of the opposing creditor detailed certain transactions, which it was alleged formed

sufficient grounds to successfully oppose the dier charge of bankrupt.

Mr Adaws was proceeding to argue the first ground when His Honor stated that his irnprosaion was that the Registrar had jurisdiction. Pei haps half an hour would be a more proper time to wait; as is done in Judges Chambers nt h n me, but nothing short of b written notice of oppositions at any rate, if not appearance, would be sufficient to stay the Registrar from proceeding to grant an order of discharge in an opposed bankruptcy.

Mr Adams argued the"second_grounds at some length, :

Mr Pitt was proceeding to reply when His Honok said : I shall not call upon Mr Pitt further. I think it appears incontrovertibly that the order of discharge was obtained on incorrect evidence. Ido not say that the evidence was wilfully false, which would bo nothing less than perjury, nor do I think that I am required by the statute to say so. It appears on the face of the statement of accounts required by law to be filed by the Bankrupt that it is prepared in at least a negligent way. Ifc is possible that on the Bankrupt appearing in person and being questioned by me I may see that the Bankrupts shortcomings are rather the results of negligence than malice. However a sufficient prima faci e case has been made to indurie me to grant the rule. Order absolute rehearing on Friday the 16th inst., opposing creditor to be allowed his costs of the estate.

Hokitika and Greymouth Tramway Company (Limited), v. County Council and Inhabitants of Westland.

The Attobney-General (with him Mr South and Mr Fell) moved for a Tule nisi in arrest of judgment in thii action, upon the gtoU'ids; — (1.) That the contract cued on in this action is void for want of certainty. (2.) That if not it is void under the Statute of Frauds as being a contract not to be completed within a year from the making thereof, and not being Bet out in words in the plaintiffs declaration, must be inferred to bo a parol contract only. (3.) That the County Council h?d no power to make the contract sued upon, which is therefore not binding, as being ultra vires. (4.) That the maintenance of tho tramway by the Company is a condition precedent to the recovery of compensation, and that, as the action is commenced before the termination of the time during which it was to be maintained, some excuse for the non-performance of the condition precedent should be alleged.

His Honob granted a rule nisi on all the grounds, and suggested that on account of the magnitude of the interests involved, the rule should be argued in the Court of Appi nl.