THE MEMBER FOR CHEVIOT IN COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 171, 19 July 1879, Page 4

THE MEMBER FOR CHEVIOT IN COURT.

The followins took place in the Supreme Court, Cbr isle!) urcf) , (be proceeding! befog inßlitutPd by "petition of J. Henderson and re A. Ssunders " : — Id this cisc a role nisi bad been obtained c»Hinr upon Alfred Fauoders to . show caoee why he should not be adjudicated a bankrupt on the ground that he had cx-Cuted a deed which was fraadalent under the Bankruptcy Act, and calculated to defeat and delay hie creditors. The motion was one to make the correspondent bankrupt on the ' ground of a fraudulent transfer to one Satan Box, who was in England, and who bad no attorney here. The respondent had drawn upon Mies Box for £5000 for Suundere and Henderson, .rfor which bills were drawn by the fir no. Jaat previous to tbt. bankruptcy of VV. Saunders the respondent Alfred Saonders transferred hid properly to - Mas Sarah Box. Then there was the <j mortgage of Wilti»m Saunders for tliis came amount of £5000. Thus it appeared that two additional securities Itad been given for the same autn, and therefore his affidavit was material and relevant to show that the transfer of { Alfred Saunders was for the same j 1 security as that of W. Seuoder^. Cottniet for the respondent dwired to draw his Hi Dor's attention to section 29, "sub-section 2 of the Bankruptcy Aof, under wl uh Mr Greseon was proceeding. [Read.} Sec. 30 then went oe to show ibe persons who w?re entitled to proceed under section 29. It - provided that there must be a debt due to the creditor petitioning voder the ' Mfction, bat the petition did not .show , jth&V there was any debt dua !» the ' petitioner. A deed had been entered into between W an 4 A. Saunders tnd :-tl)t petitioner Henderson, by which thje respondent in this case agreed to piy the' debts of the firm, and indemnify the petitioner from any process arising (} . therefrom. The petitiop went pa to •iiege tbat Edwards ft Co. requested him to pay £17,550 due and owing tjo them' by the firm of Sauoders and Henderson, which was a breach of lbs deed entered ioto The petition weijt op to allege tbtt bills at two years' -'■ date were drawn by the said Williim '^Siond^ra in the name of the firm for £5000 to Mias Box, and that she wts ". tdso returned as a creditor in tbe list of W. Saoodere* creditors; beside which U was alleged that tha respondent had ,/ ; Ifaadniently executed tbe transfer to iim Btx witboat any consideration. ' 'se>ow aobmitted tbat the breach of .•mere indemnification of the petitioner * against the debts due to the Grm was .3Kit a .idelt doe from respondent to petitioner unJer tbe 30ih section of ibe Act f case quoted ex pane Broad!) urst S2DJ. Oban 21 ) There wastiot, hie submitted, ground for bringiogr the breach of the deed under section 30, as the words of the- statute were tbat the Creditor petitioning [must have n debi . ,'^dae tobim" which was tot the case here. (Authorities died, Archibald's 1 'liaw of Bankruptcy, vol. i, p. 185: DdLcpn's Law 1 1 Bankruptcy, vol. 1, 0. Jls; ep parle Lindsay, 40 L J., 'Bankruptcy 49; ex parle Pearcy, 41 £.J. Bankruptcy !2; Roscoe on nisi /Mo* evidence 117) His Honor „, dismissed the summons with costs on tbe grounds advanced by Mr tfarrtck.