SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4186, 20 August 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO. Tuesday, August 18. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston). Six cases were entered for hearing, but only two were argued, and one of these was not ended when the Court adjourned at five p.m. PEAT V. MCKENZIE.—DEMURREB TO DECLARATION. The Attorney-General, instructed by Mr. Moorhouse, appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Travers for the defendant. The facts as alleged in the declaration are briefly as follows :On the 22nd December, 1866, one James McEvoy, (who was originally made a party to this action) conveyed to one Samuel Chandler fifty acres of country land, and one town allotment to which he was entitled for military service, together with the Crown grant for the same. On the Bth October, 1867, Samuel Chandler conveyed the same lands to one Eobert Norgate Hawes. In both these deeds the lands conveyed were described as being situated in the Province of Taranaki, and although plans were drawn thereon, no reference was made to such plans in the deeds themselves, and nothing appeared to show what particular sections were intended to be conveyed. On November 4, 1871, Hawes conveyed to the plaintiff Peat fifty acres, described as section 15, Okotuku block, Province of Wellington, and one acre described as section 3, township of Wairoa, alleged to be the lands to which McEvoy had been entitled for military service. These deeds have not been registered. On October 26, 1872, McEvoy conveyed the lands as described in the "conveyance, Hawes to Peat, to the defendant McKenzie, after the latter had notice of the previous conveyances. On October 31, 1872, a Crown grant issued in the name of McEvoy for the same sections, 15 Okotuku, and 3 Wairoa, the legal estate being ante-vested to January 22, 1867, a month subsequent to the date of the conveyance from McEvoy to Chandler, the root of plaintiff's title. The conveyance to McKenzie and the Crown grant to McEvoy have been registered, and this action is brought by the plaintiff to have this conveyance set aside. The defendant demurred to the declaration, on the grounds—(l.) That the facts alleged did not entitle the plaintiff to any relief against McKenzie. • (2.) That there was nothing in the conveyances from McEvoy to Chandler, and Chandler to Hawes, to show that the lands conveyed were the same as those conveyed to McKenzie. (3.) That McEvoy at the time he executed the conveyance to Chandler, had no estate to convey, (i.) That the facts alleged would only constitute McKenzie a trustee for Peat ; and (5.) That if McKenzie took the conveyance with notice of the prior contract, Peat could compel him to perform such contract. Mr. Travers supported the demurrer. The Attorney-General contended that the declaration was good in substance. The Court reserved judgment. VINCENT V. JAMES. The Attorney-General, instructed by Mr. Moorhouse, for plaintiff; Mr. Travers for defendant. In May 1866, judgment had been entered up by default in this action. A month since, leave was obtained to issue executions. A rule nisi has since been granted to show cause why the writ of execution should not be set aside on the ground of irregularity in entering up judgment in 1866, and in issuing execution. The whole question was one of practice, and of little interest except to the legal profession. The Attorney-General had not finished his argument when the Court rose, and the case was adjourned to Friday. The Court will sit in Bankruptcy to-day (Wednesday) at 11 a.m. There are six cases set down for hearing. SITTINGS IN BANKRUPTCY. Wednesday, August 19. William Henry Diamond, Eobert McDonald, Charles Hillsden, and Wallace Lawrence applied for their discharges, which were not opposed. Rodolph Laurent, whose application had been adjourned from last sitting day in consequence of the absence of the bankrupt's solicitor, Mr. Cheesman, was examined as to several items in his accounts, upon which the trustee, Mr. O'Shea, reported unfavorably, Mr. Borlase appeared for the bankrupt, and stated that he had only been instructed the previous day by the bankrupt's solicitor. Mr. Cheesman's absence, and several matters elicited from the bankrupt, indicating, to say the least, a great disregard for the etiquette of the legal profession on the part of Mr. Cheesman, called forth a strong expression of dissatisfaction from His Honor, who remarked that it was much to- be regretted that the profession did not itself take means to maintain its dignity. The application for discharge was adjourned till next sittings in bankruptcy. IN BE JOHN BEAD. Mr. Borlase, instructed by Mr. Cheesman (who was again absent), appeared for the bankrupt, and applied for his discharge. Mr. Moorhouse appeared for the trustee, Mr. Worth, and Mr. Ollivier attended to watch the case for Mr. Greenfield, a witness in the case. The bankrupt, in cross-examination by Mr. Moorhouse, admitted that he had, in August, 1873, being then pressed by his creditors, executed a transfer to three of them, viz., Messrs. Greenfield and Stewart, and Chew, of the whole of his real and personal property. The bankrupt, however, maintained that he believed that those gentlemen were already entitled under a mortgage, which mortgage, however, was informal and of no force whatever against the real estate. Mr. Moorhouse opposed the discharge, on the ground that the bankrupt had, ■without reasonable cause, delayed filing his declaration of insolvency until long after he was. aware that he was hopelessly insolvent—having, in fact, been forced to file onlyby a debtor's summons sent out by Mr. Moorhouse, acting for the creditors. ' His Honor commented severely upon the action of the bankrupt, and said it appeared that the transactions with Messrs. Greenfield and Stewart required further investigation. • The bankrupt's discharge was suspended for three months. This finished the business, and the Court adjourned.