SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 52, 20 January 1872, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

Friday, January 12. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) RE EDWARD GREENWAY. Mr Borlase, who appeared for the petitioner, applied for his final discharge, stating that all the requirements of the act had been complied with, the accounts declared satisfactory, and that there was no opposition. The bankrupt not being in attendance, the case was ordered to stand over till next sitting. RE EDWARD EITZGIBBON. ' Mr Buckley appeared for the petitioner. There being no opposing creditor, the bankrupt received his final discharge. re R. K. DAVIS. Mr Pharazyn applied forthe final discharge of bankrupt. No opposition. Discharge granted. RE ESTERAN BALLE. Petitioner applied in person for his final discharge, and was examined by his Honor. It appeared from the report of the Trustee in Bankruptcy that the petitioner had been engaged in various pursuits at Turakina for the last six years ; but being utterly ignorant of all clerical knowledge, he was unable to manage his business in any kind of a satisfactory manner. His Honor cautioned the bankrupt that if he should embark in business again, he should be careful not to risk his creditors’ money without availing himself of ' some clerical assistance. There being no opposition, a discharge was granted. RE JOHN FREDERICK SCHDLTZE. Mi* J. Gf. Allan appeared for the bankrupt, and applied for his final discharge. The. report of the Trustee in Bankruptcy having been read, the bankrupt received his discharge. RE WILLIAM KIRK. This was an application for a final discharge which had been held over from the last sittings, owing to the non-attendance of petitioner. No opposition. Bankrupt discharged. RE LODIS CHARLES RICHARDS. Mr Neon, on behalf of Mr Morgan, of Wanganui, principal creditor, opposed the final discharge of bankrupt. From the examination of petitioner, it appeared that the cause of his bankruptcy was through having been cast in damages in a trespass case tried in the Supreme Court, in which Morgan was plaintiff. The original claim of Morgan had been proved at £286, but had been subsequently swelled to £315. Bankrupt denied that he had been a partner with his brothers sheep farming; though opposer produced an advertisement in a Wanganui paper, announcing the dissolution of the partnership between the Richards Bros, and accounted for the fact by saying that as it had been customary for the public to regard the brothers as partners, the advertisement was inserted in order to provide against any difficulty arising from that cause. It was also elicited that the advertisement had been inserted only a few days before the action laid by Morgan was tried. . Bankrupt alleged as his reason for defending that action, without any means with which to meet the expenses, that he had been advised by Mr Roberts, solicitor, of Wanganui, that his case was so good, he was not at all likely to lose it; and also averred that he had previously contested analagous cases with the same person successfully. His Honor declined to proceed further with the case until. the bankrupt had filed his accounts for six months prior to the original declaration of insolvency. As the bankrupt could not get his accounts prepared by next Tuesday, the case was ordered to stand over till March next. RE HENRY REVELL. Bankrupt not in attendance. Case struck out, RE CHAS SEACOMBE. Petitioner applied for his final discharge. Mr Borlase opposed on behalf of the Bank of New Zealand. As it could not be shown that the Bank had proved their debt, and there being no other opposition, the bankrupt received his discharge. RE H. J. PERHAM. His Honor delivered a minute and lengthy judgment in the case, couched in terms of judicial severity, as to the line of conduct pursued by the bankrupt and his clerk (amounting to something very like collusion) in regard to the moneys of a client, and contrary to the general instructions received ; and in otherwise showing the greatest negligence and disregard of the interests of the Baid client. By the least harsh construction of the facts of the case, the conduct of a solicitor so dealing with his client s money without sanction or cognisance, his Honor considered must be held to be a gross breach of professional duty; and, according to the very mildest construction which could be put upon it by any code of morality, ho could not think of granting the petitioner his discharge without, coupling with it some practical mark of disapproval of his conduct. His Honor, therefore, in order to mark his disapprobation of the conduct of Mr Perham, ordered that his final discharge bo delayed for six calendar months.

RE KENNETH DOUGLAS. The bankrupt did not appear. His Honor commented with some asperity on the absence of the bankrupt, when it was known that a judgment in the case of J, H. Perham had been postponed in order that Douglas might be examined regarding some questionable transactions between the two bankrupts. Mr Borlase, for the bankrupt, applied f or his final discharge, which was refused; and his Honor ordered that the petition he discharged. POSTPONED.

The following cases were ordered to stand over. _Te Hapuka, William Robertson, Langbridge and Mitchell.