Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1102, 20 July 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1882.

The case o£ Read's Trustees v. Robt. Cooper occupied the attention of Mr District Judge Hardcastle yesterday to an extent which must have taxed that gentleman’s powers to the utmost Our readers will probably remember that the Trustees asked some fortnight ago for an adjudication of bankruptcy against Mr Robert Cooper. Mt Greenwood, the Registrar of the Court acting as deputy for the Judge, refused the application on the grounds that the debt sued upon was a purchased debt, not purchased in the general interests of the creditors, but purchased to suit»r»Ws ends. This decision is virtually Judge Hardcastle's decision, although given by his delegate. Now we believe that Judge Hardcastle has no right to reverse his own decision, and in this opinion we are supported by high legal authorities In support of the whole argument Mr Brassey quoted—--11 Ex parte Griffin in re Adams, 48, L. J. 107 ; Ex parte Davis in re Kane, 45, L. J. j Ex parte Claxton, in re Claxton, 40 L. J.” If a reversion of the decision is necessary it canuot in equity or law be given by the Judge whose verdict is under question. It remains for the enquiry ot a higher Court only. Judge Hardcastle appears to us to have exceeded his powers in attempting to deal with the matter. Again occurs to us the question, is this a fair and equitable effort in the interests of the general body of Mr. Robert Cooper s creditors ; or is it an unfair and inequitable attempt on the part of the Trustees in Read’s estate to put a stop to proceedings now pending against them in the Supreme Court? Here we take our stand 1 We unhesitatingly say that the latter view is the correct one, and that the constant persecution (we can call it by no other name) of Mr. Robert Cooper, is simply unjustifiable and wicked, and has its origin in private and singular interests, and does not tend to the benefit of the creditors in the estate. That the Supreme Court, to whom an appeal is made by Mr. Cooper, will take this view of the matter, is a certainty. On more grounds than one Mr. Hardcastle's judgment of yesterday must fall to the ground. There is clearly shewn in the judgments and opinions of gentlemen administering the law in the Mother country, an expression which canuot fail to be a popular one, that the law shall not be prostituted to suit private convenience. With all due deference to Mr Hardcastle, we say that his interpretation, as construed by his judgment in Cooper’s case, is contrary to law and to precedent. The law distinctly says that debts shall NOT be purchased for the purpose of forcing Bankruptcy proceedings, and Mr Greenwood acting as Mr Hardcastle’s deputy, has enforced that axiom. Then comes Mr HardcastliE reversing his own (wo use the words advisedly and knowing what thev mean) decision. We hold that Mr Hardcastle is wrong both in law and equity. If the facts of Read's Estate were gone into probably he would have altered hia opinion. ' Mr Rees says that he, personally, is a dangerous man to quarrel with, We differ with Mr Rees, and consider him a very easy man to quarrel with, and by no means a dangerous opponent. If he were a dangerous opponent he should have given us a taste of his quality in this very one-sided matter. Let Mr Rees, Mr Ward, and last—the only redeeming clause in the whole very dirty transaction—Mr Whitaker—whose name is used as a sponsor for bona fides where other names fail, do their utmost, they will never be able to work their spite further than they have done. We regret that MrWHiTAKEßsbould allow his name to be mixed up in such dis- I reputable transactions. The Trustees j in this estate are simply throwing the j whole estate away in needless salaries, ! and discreditable law proceedings, I Out of every ten cases they bring be-! fore a Court of Justice they la«o nine, i They have no locus standi, and their i repute might be improved upon. We I challenge Ekap’b Tyurtces to ghpw to '

the public a balance-sheet of their administration of the estate’s affairs. They have elected to make the question of their administration a public one, and we have not the slightest hesitation in telling Messrs William Coleman and William Fryab Clabke that they are not acting wisely and judiciously in the interests of their clients.

Oub correspondent “ Aboriginal ” vexes us with much repetition. The Jsew Zealand Land Settlement Company might save us much trouble if they would be good enough to say whether they are a bogus Company, as our correspondent implies, or not! We, personally, can complain of having received orders for money drawn upon them by their servants, which have been treated in a most unsatisfactory manner. We allude to an order for £3O which was given to the writer by an employe of this Company, who alleges that they owe him considerably over £l5O, and which sum they are unable to pay him. A Company pretending to land transactions should surely never owe a servant a single shilling! At any rate, for the good reputation of the Company, and to protect the public against possible fraud, we think it best to ask Messrs. DeLautoub, Rees, and the other gentlemen, who appear as the active motors in the concern, to give a clearer, and more legitimate answer to “ Aboriginal,” than they have hitherto condescended to do.

Will Mb. DeLavtovb, M.H.R., be good enough to state why he should arrogate to himself the right of jumping over the heads of better men in his demand to be admitted to law practice ? We have met the hon. gentleman once or twice, and are confident that there are plenty of boys who are apprenticed, or articled, or whatever the non, gentleman may choose to term it, to the law, whose knowledge is far superior to the hon. gentleman’s, and whose courtesy will simply reduce him to his lowest denomination, whioh we may fairly assume to be an unknown quantity.