Mr North’s Appeal.

Patea Mail, 2 August 1882, Page 3

Mr North’s Appeal.

The decision of Judge Rawson, at the District Court last Friday jin the case of North v. Williams, in which fraudulent bankruptcy and conspiracy had been alleged, is to be appealed against. Security for costs will have to be given, and the costs in the late action will have to.;be paid, before the appeal can be heard. We understand that the amount of. security required for the costs of appeal will have to be determined by Judge Gillies in Auckland, before whom the motion for appeal will be made.

Mr Hughes and Mr Barton appear to have given a strong opinion to the effect lb at Judge Rawson’s judgment is inequitable, being contrary to the law and the facts.

Mr Barton has prepared, and lodged with the Court, the following notice of appeal. . ;

In the matter of Williams, a debtor, and of the application ofThomns North, W. F. Keating, James Robson and Thomas Robson, William R. Prosser, and G. C. Rees,, creditors of the said W. Williams.

: Take notice that the above - named applicant intends to appeal to the Supreme Court of New ; ;Zealand from .the decision of this honorable court, delivered on the twenty-eight day of July 1882, dismissing the rule nisi on the "twenty-ninth day of June 1882, herein with costs upon grounds both of facts and of law.

The grounds of fact are as follows

I. That the resolution for the sale of the estate of (the said debtor (in the said: rule nisi mentioned) to James John Patterson was fraudulent and void, and contrary: to the policy of the bankruptcy laws in force in the colony. : 11. That the said resolution was not passed by a majority in number and value of the creditors presenter represented at the meeting for the following reasons , 1. The proof of debt of the firm of “ Williams Brothers,” in the above rule nisi mentioned, was for a debt not due at or before the date of the bankruptcy herein, the debtor being: at; the time of his- bankruptcy a member of the said firm, and no balance of partnership; account haying been struck shewing the said sura to be due by the said debtor to William Williams the younger and Daniel James Williams. 2. That the proof of debt of the said firm of Williams Brothers was not in fact duly voted upon ; George Francis Sherwood having voted as proxy for the said firm, the said William Williams the younger and Daniel James Williams being present at the said meeting at the same time and voting upon other proofs of debt for which they had proved. 3. (a) That the proof of debt of the firm of Williams Brothers for £232 was in respect of a promissory note-payA able to Andrew Diincan. ( h j) And that the said William Williams the younger and Daniel James Williams purchased the said promissory note with, notice of the act of bankruptcy, paying twenty shillings in the pound upon the amount thereof, and with the fraudulent intention of using the same to defeat the objects of the bankruptcy laws in force in the colony, (c) That there was no lawful evidence that the promissory' note aforesaid was ever endorsed by the said Andrew Duncan, the payer thereof, to the said William William Wiliams the younger and Daniel James Williams, the holders thereof. 4. That the proof of debt of Daniel James Williams for £33 6s 5d was for a debt not due to him at the time of bankruptcy of the said debtor. 5. That the promissory note in respect of which the said last mentioned proof of debt was made, was not endorsed over to the said Daniel James Williams by the payer thereof. 6., That the transfer, of the said debt (if any) was obtained for the purpose of fraud.

7. That the proof of debt of Thomas Farrah for £IOO was not due at the time of bankruptcy of the said debtor. 8. That the proof of debt of Thomas Reid for the sum of £2O was not made in respect of the bankruptcy of the said debtor, and it does not.appear that he had authorised the said Thomas Farrah or any other person to prove for. him for the said sum. 9. That the proof of debt of the said Henry Edward Poynter Adams for £2B 3s contained no statement of account between the said Henry Edward Poynter Adams and the debtor.

10. That the proof of debt of the said Henry Edward Poynter Adams was not duly voted upon, the said Henry Edward Poynter Adams not having personally voted thereon, and William Cowern, the person who did vote thereon, not having been duly appointed as his proxy. , And the grounds of law’ are as follow: ; I. That the learned Judge of the said I Court on the taking of evidence in support of the said rule nisi improperly refused to admit in evidence those portions of the books of account of the firm of which it was alleged the said debtor was a member which contained records of the firm’s ■ transactions after the period wdien the partnership was'alleged to have begun. 11, That the taking of evidence upon the : question of fraud having been reserved by consent until all the evidence should have I been taken upon the other questions, the 'learned Judge refused to hoar witnesses proposed to be called by the applicants at ;the conclusion of the evidence upon the other matters for the purpose of giving evidence upon the question of fraud.

111, Also that the learned judge erroneously held that the evidence did not disclose the existence of a partnership between the debtor and his two sons, William Williams the younger, and Daniel James Williams.

IV. Also that i the learned judge erroneously held that there was no evidence in law of fraud in and about the passing of the said resolution for the sale of the ;said debtor’s estate.

: V. That the learned judge erroneously held that the.votes of, William Williams -the younger, and Daniel James Williams, of the firm of Williams Brothers, by George Francis Sherwood, their proxy, upon the resolution for sale of the debtor’s estate at the meeting: of creditors of the said debtor, was available as a vote for value, but not for number, although the said William Williams the younger and Daniel James Williams were present at the said meeting of creditors, and voted upon the said resolution in respect of their claims made by them against the said debtor.

VI. That the learned judge erroneously held, . 1. That although the. promissory note for £33 6s had not been endorsed by the payee thereof, the said Daniel James Williams could: prove for the amount thereof as holder, for value. 2. That the said Daniel James Williams could prove against the. estate for the amount of the said promissory note, he not having been endorsee thereof at the time of the bankruptcy of the said debtor.

3, That there was no evidence that the purchase by the said Daniel James Williams of the amount of the said promissory note by paying twenty shillings in the pound upon the amount thereof was fraudulent and void as being contrary to the policy of the bankruptcy laws in in force in the colony. YII. That the learned judge erroneously held, 1. That the contract with Thomas Farrah to pay him, the said Thomas Farrah, £IOO “to put him (the debtor) through the Bankruptcy Court and obtain his discharge” was not void as being contrary to the Law Practitioners Acts in force in the colony. ‘ .

2. That there was no evidence that services rendered by the said Thomas Farrah for which he was to receive £IOO was calculated to defeat the objects and the policy of the bankruptcy laws in force in the colony; : VIII. That the learned judge erroneously held, 1. That William Cowern, the creditors’ trustee in bankruptcy of the said debtor’s estate, was only appointed the proxy of ■the, said Henry Edward Poynter Adams, although . the memorandum of proxy: appointing him' the said William Cowern, had not been signed.

; 2. That there was no evidence that the said proxy had been obtained for the purposes of fraud. Signed by Mr E. Barton as agent for Messrs -Standish and Hughes, the applicants’ solicitors ; and copies served on the creditors’ trustee (Mr Cowern), and on Mr Harrierton as the debtor’s solicitor.