SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 7, 8 January 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

[Before His Honor the Cnne* Justice.] Greenfield {Commissioner of Crow* Lands) v. Harris. This case, in which tho evidence and arguments wero of the most uninteresting character to a layttiaD-, lasted until nearly halftpast eleven last night, the Jury having viewed tbe land in dispute prior to being address-ad by counsel. The following are tbe findings on the various issues, it having been previously agreed that the damages uhoald be purely nominal : — 1. Is Bection 400 within the Nelson Land District ?— Yes, 2. At tha time of the Crown grant in 1812, was tho water Una on the north bank of the river the line of the high bank when the water was at its ordinary height ? — Yes. I. Was it so in 1878, the date of the Land Transfer certificate ? — No. ■4. Afc tbe date of the grant tras tbo land between the high bank and where the post andjrail fence now is land where the action of the river watsr was so common and usual and so continuous as to mark as a river bei ? —Yes. fi. Wag it so in 1878 ?— No. Mr Pitt said thab the findings on issues S and 4 being bis favor he should ask for judgment to be entered accordingly, but he presumed the case would have to be further argued in Banco. The arguments will be proceeded with on Monday. [Iw Bankruptcy.] Re Thomas Stacker Wymond, Mr Pitt appeared for the bankrupt's discharge, stating tbat in spite of the formidable opposition raised, he believed he should be able to show that ho was fully entitled to it. Mr Fell, with him Mr Percy Adams, opposed on behalf of the Trustees. Mr Fell said he would etato the grounds on which the. discharge was opposed. Wymond had been doing a large trade bere as a draper for 8 or 9 years. In February last be was considerably Indebted, but persuaded his creditors to render him furtber assistance by representations which were entirely false. In February he showed a credit balance of £9020 15s Bd, on which advances were made to him, and large assignments of goods wera forwarded to bim. He carried on until October, wben he went to see his creditors in Wellington. He thea showed a deficiency of £3500, so, according to his own showing, between February and October there was a difference of £12,509. His affairs were then in Bueh a state that bis creditors could give uo further assistance, and in October he filed a deed of assignment, and aftarwards one of insolvency in the Supreme Court. The total debts were set down at £18,809, and the assets at £14,740. This statement proved to be quite incorrect, and the trustees, growing angry at "tbe discrepency, resolved to recommend that the discharge should be suspended. Although he had been living in the wildest extraragance, yet this could not aocount for this enormous deficiency, and when asked for an explanation he could not give it, and so the creditors took, these proceedings. Io 1876 he executed a deed of settlement, and immediately beforo his bankruptcy another, which was now admitted to be valueless, and the goods it covered wero now surrendered. After the bankruptcy Mrs Wymond went to Christchurch, taking with her a large amount of goods, which were seized by the trustees, and a quantity of them, to the va!ue of £200, were found to be new, unworn, and unwashed. The trustees instituted a prosecution, and tbe case was heard before two Justices, who discovered what they conceived to be a point of law— what it was no one could understand— and the case was dismissed. Tbe goods now remained in tbe custody of the police, and tbe Court waa now naked, first, tp suspend tfto discharge, nnd

next to deal with the goods Under the Fraudulent Debtors' Act, It would be greatly to thb satisfftbtion bf Wymond himself and of I the public, in a place where be had been a large trader, if he were held blameless and proted innocent of the grave Oharges made against him, whibh was presented by the complete fiasco in the Magistrates' Court. His innocence bad nofc yet beeo established, and be (Mr Pell) would aßk the Court to order piocjedings to be instituted agaiuat bim. His Honor You will have to mako a separate application for that. Mr jPell suggested that it would be very inconvenient if the whole matter had to go to Wellington. His Honor : The matter should have been broi ght before the local Babkruptcy Court. Mr Pitt s It was on abcoUht df the magnitude of the affair, and the grounds of the opposition offered that it had appeared to him to be a proper case for the Supreme Court. The District Court _ itudge wds frequently absent, and applications would occasionally have to he made to tte Registrar, wbo in the Diatrict Court was not a lawyer as was the case in the Sup: etna Court. Mr Fell thought there was cna reason why the bankruptcy bhOild bi brctight into the Suftreihe Court, as if a prosecution were brdertd ifc Would have to take piae* in the District Court. t. S. Wymohd, examined by Mr #ell j I »tn the bankrupt, and have beeo for 9 or 10 years carrying on business as draper in Nelson. My busihess was a large od4. I fouad it hebeseary to tile tl deed of ambtfofrent in November last in the Disttict Court. Assent jraS refused, to the Seed; and I afterwards {ile-d^a iiUfelarati&D ot Jnßolletiby in the Supremo Cotirt. That was aceonipabied by a list of assets and liabilities, showing the former to ba £14,740 and the latter £18,809Tbat, to the best of my belief, was a correct statement of my affairs. That showed a deficiency of £4060. The assets include all property over which there i& any mortgage. My private ;house Wag settled on my wife in 1874, and tho furniture in 1876. Afterwards it was so arranged that I was able it to raise money on tbe hou<e to pay iiiy crfeditoti Dtliet furniture in tb? house waa settled oh fity Wife in lBSO: Since the proceedings iv bankruptcy these articles have baen agreed io be givon up. My lists include all my as^ts. In February, 1879, Mr Claikson made a balance sheet, which I sent round to my creliiors. In 1880 1 sent I another esiitoate of the Valuo of my stock ! I believed ifc showed a surplus of i'SOOO or | £9000. The balance sheet of February, 1879, showed a baiance of £9020 15s Bd. This included stock at Nblson bost £13,953 1 ?s. That should have been 5(1 per cent less. That fairiy represented the value leis the discount, and was compiled from the stocktaking. Fixtures and effects were set down j at £1000, and book debts at £1968, no doubtful lor bad r fll 39 beiug included j lease of corner prettjißesj £3000 • ditto wholesale store, £506, and fancy store, £300. This male the total asset* £20,722 Ss 4-1, Auainst thiß there' werd bills payable, £6666 12s Sd ; open accounts, £1884 14s 5d ; National Bank overdraft, £12S0. Total, £11,701 it 8d The balance-sheet of February, 1879, was taka j because it was the proper time, and it was sent to my creditors by Clarkson. It bas always been customary to iay my balancesheet before the creditors, to Marcb 1879, I sent a _ letter to Byng Harris stating tbat my liabilities were very large aud making certain proposals for assistance from my creditors. Some of them gave me a little time and otbers pressed me. We showed that our liabilities at that time were owing partly to over buying and partly to the Banks being short of money. In January 1880, 1 went to Melbourne and took a balance sh«et mada Up ftom the books showing a balanco of XDOOO. My principal creditors in Melbourne were Patterson, Lang, and Bruce. I owed them between £3000 and £4000. Southern*, their trustee, telegraphed to me | from Melbourne telling me to keep the best order I could for bim. 1 ordered to the extent df about £30tio. Cash adrances were made to me by Patterson and Lang to the extent of aboat £1000. That was at the time of my visit to Melbourne. Southern took an order from me just before my insolvency. I have paid the same firm about £600 a month for ten years. They started me in business, and always trusted mc. Five or six months ago I was served with a writ by Sargood. Some of my creditors supplied me with goods after my February, 1880, balance-sheet. I got them from Thompson and Shannon, who are my second largest;creditotSi I got goods from Cock & Co-, a fshort time from my insolvency. 1 once {owed N. Edwards and Co. £6000. I got goods from Thomson and Shannon a week or two before my failure, and promised to pay them casb, but I could uot, as Southern took the whole of my takings for a fortnight. Southern promised if I paid tbat money and would assign to him tbat he would sell back the estate to me. Undsr that understanding Mr Clarkson gave him the money. In February I showed a balanoe of about £§nod. In October, Upon stocktaking, I found I wss to the bad to the extent of £3562. I. bave no reason to suppose that , tbe February, 1880; statement was incorrect. [Tbe witness then proceeded to aocount in detail for the difference in his position between February and October. One of these items was four forced sales, £2000. These cost a lot of money in advertising and extra staff required. He kept no account of the sales, but could guess what the losses were. A sum of £3000 might be lost on a salo of £10,000 or £13,000 worth of goods. He bad been pressed for tbe last eighteen months, during wbich time there bad been nothing but forced Bales. He thought £3000 was not 100 much to set down as th* value of the lease of the Hall of Commerce. At tbe time he made the statement the premises were worth £10 a week. The lease had ten or twelve yeara to run. He thought it a perfectly fair statement that the value of the leases had fallen from £3800 in February, 1880, to £1950 in October of the same year. This waß owiog to the badness of the times. In his statement of 1879 his liabilities to the National Bank were Bet down at £800 Icsb than they actually were.] My drawings from the business have been £34 a week. Tbis included my household, private, and travelling expenses. ;i don't know that any of my household expenses were paid out of the shop by,contras. Everything was left to my cleik. I don't know how my account with Mr Fletcher was settled. It was done while I was away. He never pressed me personally for it. .There bas always been a jarge contra account between us for some years. I don't know whether a large quantity of goods went out of the store to him just before I filed. I see by my books (now produced) that on the 25th October Mr Fletcher was charged with goods to the value of £104. I was at Wellington at that time. It did not strike me as remarkable wben I swore to tbe list of my liabilities that Fletcher did not appear amongst the creditors, i At tbis stage ot the proceedings the Court was adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday.