DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2124, 13 January 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMARU.—YESTERDAY. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] CIVIL CASES. Henry Green v. M. J. Knubley, claim £75, on a dishonoured promissory note. The jury having been locked up in this case till 5.20 p.m., intimated that there was no prospect of their agreeing. There were three for a verdict for plaintiff, and one for defendant. After some argument, it was decided to accept the verdict, the point as to whether it was right to receive the verdict of three-fourths of the jury being reserved for argument. IN BANKRUPTCY. In re William Henry Hunt. Motion that a certain deed transferring property to the wife of the bankrupt should be declared void Mr Hamersley appeared for the motion, and Messrs Jameson and Watson to oppose it. The following evidence was taken : William Henry Hunt: lam a debtor in bankruptcy. In 1876 I was solvent, and I purchased section 292 and built a house on it. The money was party mine and partly Mrs Hunt’s. The title was taken in her name, but I bought the land. I was never insolvent until Potter failed, when I lost £2OO. My wife lent me money to pay a deposit on a section I bought. She lent me £2O, which she brought from England. She also lent me £2OO on condition that I should get a loan to pay her back, or that I should make over section 220 to her. The money was borrowed from Messrs Boss, Sims and Co., and placed to my credit in the Bank by Mrs Hunt. I began to build with the money, and put the buildings up about 10 feet high. I expended £IOO on the laud exclusive of the purchase money. I applied for a loan of £7OO to the Commercial Building Society to pay my wife, but did not get it. My wife kept troubling me about the £2OO until I made the property over to her. I asked Mr Austin could lie get me a loan, but he could not. To Mr Hamersley : My wife kept the money in the box, but both of us had access to it. I had the use of the money when I was hard pushed. About £2O was the largest sum I ever borrowed from her. The Court then adjourned. THIS DAY. Mr Hamersley argued at considerable length that the transaction was not a honafide transaction but was made for the purpose of securing the property against the bankrupt s creditors when the bankrupt was on the verge of insolvency. He contended that the husband could not be said to have held the property in trust, and that his evidence went to show that the money he received from Mrs Hunt was received as a loan. Mr Jameson replied, and a good deal of legal argument ensued. Buie discharged without costs