Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1218, 6 December 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1882.

In referring our readers to our issue of July 20th, 1882, we hope to supplement a great deal of otherwise necessary space with regard to an important decision in the Court of Appeal before the full bench of Judges, lately given in the case of Mr. Ro hurt Cooper, who it will bo remembered, was adjudicated a bankrupt on the petition of Messrs. Wm. Coleman, and W. Fryar Clarke, as Trustees in the estate of the late G. E. Read. To this estate the petitioning creditors alleged that Mr. Robert Cooper was indebted in the sum of £40,000 or thereabouts, for which amount they held securities to the amount of £28,000, and £6OOO and odd they charged for interest, etc., at rates very remunerative to the estate. Not that we blame them by any means for charging high rates of interest, especially in cases where it will take all they can £et to enable the enormous i staff who are feeding upon the vitals of the i estate, to live in that state to which it has : pleased the fates to call them. But to return ! to our muttons ; notwithstanding the large I sum in which they made Mr. Cooper a debtor to the estate, they found it necessary to pur- ; chase a debt of £5OO, for half its value, in order to enable them to come before the Court and ask that Mr. Cooper might be adjudicated a bankrupt. In other words they first prostitute the law to their own convenience, and then, with that graceful modesty for which they are so eminently distinguished, ask the higher Courts to support them in their iniquity. What is the result ? Mr. Cooper appeals from Mr. Hardcastle’s decision on three distinct grounds. Firstly : That the summons on which he was adjudicated a bankrupt was not a summons within Section 30 of the Debtors and Creditors Act, 1876, but merely a summons to appear at the office of the Clerk of the District Court, and was signed by G. L. Greenwood, Clerk of the District Court. It did not purport to issue out of the Court to call upon him to appear before the Court; it was a nullity, I and might have been disregarded. Secondly: i That the Judge of the District Court had no • power in the same materials to rescind an ! order of that Court ; the appeal should have i been to the Supreme Court. The Clerk was ; sitting under Sec. 12 of the Act; Secs. 13 and 14, under which the proceedings were taken, ■ refer only to Registrars of the Supreme Court, j Thirdly: That the proceedings of the res- ; pondents were a fraud upon the bankruptcy laws, inasmuch as the debt aud act of bankruptcy were purchased by the petitioners. I This it would appear was the most impor- ' tant point of all. The debt was purchased, j doubtless, with the object of putting an end ' to certain litigation brought by Cooper I against Read’s Trustees. His Honor Chief ' Justice Prendergast sustained the judgment of Mr Hardcastle, but allowed an . appeal by Mr Cooper to the full Bench j against his decision, and on Monday, Nov. I the 27th, this final appeal was heard in Wellington before their Honors Mr Justice ! Johnston, Mr. Justice Gillies, and Mr. Justice Williams, and after a long and patient hearing of Mr. Edwards for the appellant, and Mr. A. Whitaker for the respondents, their Honors reserved judgment, which, however, they delivered on Monday last, the 4ta inst., in favor -of Mr R. Cooper ; thus reversing the decision of Mr Hardcastle and the Chief Justice, aud annulling the bankruptcy of Mr. Cooper as declared by the fiat of the former gentleman when he reversed the decision of Mr. Greenwood, who, sitting as Registrar of the District Court previous to the advent of Mr. Hardcastle, had decided in Mr. Cooper’s favor against the petitioning creditors on the very same grounds on which the three Judges have now sustained his decision and reversed ' that of Mr. Hardcastle. Every possible argument was used, every possible authority quoted by Counsel for the respondents before the three Judges in support of his case, but all was futile ; law and justice vindicated their rights and the persecution so long indulged in by the versatile gentlemen in charge of the Estate of the late G. E. Read, was Drought to a close, for the time being, by the verdict of the three Judges. But let us look a little way back. Whose money is it that is being squandered and wasted in this , utterly frivolous litigation ? It certainly does not come out of the pockets of the Trustees I (although it ought to), and the natural conclusion is that the rightful heirs to the estate must be the losers. And so they will. They are compelled to stand idly by while thousands of pounds of their property are being wasted in useless litigation and the maintenance of an enormous and unnecessary staff. The proceedings we have just alluded to will cost the estate something over £3OOO. while at the same time not less than £4OOO per annum can be going out of the estate for salaries and fees. We would suggest to the eagles who are gathered together about the carcase that they should kindly allow the heirs a hundred or two, and divide the bulk at once. If they keep pe king and pecking away at the present rate there won't be even ' a bone left for the unfortunate owners when ' the ravenous feeders have finished. It is ! very little use paying the heirs the very ' empty compliment of letting them linger. The estate must inevitably all go in litigation and salaries, if it is not managed better than it is at present. Here is a sum of £3OOO ut* ; terly lost to the estate through stupidity and mismanagement. The Trustees were well and thoroughly warned both by private individuals and the public Press that Mr. ; Hardcastle’s decision must fall to the ground, and they had time and opportunity to effect a compromise ; and yet, to gratify their own feeling in the matter, they deliberately jeopardise, and eventually lose, £3OOO of another man’s money, rather than take a timely warning. To us it appears incredible that the real owners of this estate do not endeavour to take it out of the hands of . men who have proved so utterly incompetent ■to protect their interests in it. Is there noway of settling disputes of account but .by foolish litigation ? Is there no such thing as compromise or arbitration ? Is every means, save that of high-handed oppression by prostitution of the law, exhausted ? Out upon such folly. The Supreme Court has, and always has had, a general power, to refuse to exercise its functions, and will always interfere to prevent the bankruptcy ; laws being made a source of oppression ; ' and here lies the gist of the thing. In seeking law they have sought oppression, not I justice. And so long as that is what they seek so long may they rest assured that there I exists a power in the law which will effectu- , ally prevent their endeavors from fructify- | ing. Again we beg to assure Messrs. ■ William Coleman and William Fryar | Clarke that they are not acting wisely or judiciously in the interests of their clients.