SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 December 1922, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

THE SESSION ENDS. SEVERAL CASES DISPOSED OF. The fourth quarterly session of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth for 1922 ended yesterday afternoon, when several matters remaining on the list were disposed of by His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman. In the divorce action brought by Donald Morrison for a dissolution of his marriage with Margaret Kate Morrison, on the grounds of desertion, a decree nisi, which may be made absolute after three months, was granted. The case was heard last week, and decision was reserved pending proof of service of citation. A motion for admission of proof of debt in the bankrupt estate of Mahorangi, a Native, was moved by Mr. A. A. Bennett, and was allowed to stand over till the February session, owing to the illness of Mr. P. B. Fitzherbert, who is appearjjg in opposition. BANKRUPTS DISCHARGE OPPOSED. When the motion for the discharge in bankruptcy of Oliver Cross was called, Mr. R. H. Billing intimated that the application for an order for the possession of certain property which was attached to the motion, could be struck out as possession had been given. Mr. R. H. Quilliam, on behalf of certain creditors, opposed the application for discharge on the grounds that some of the claims against the estate were disputed by the D.O.A. (Mr. J. S. S. Medley), and the creditors required further investigation; the ownership of the furniture was disputed, the bankrupt’s wife claiming it, while the creditors considered it as part of the estate; and that, throughout, the bankrupt had delayed and hindered the administration of the estate. Mr. Quilliam added that Cross had been declared a bankrupt in February last, no dividend had yet been paid, and, although the property had been sold, the estate had not been cleared up. Mr. Medley was called on to give evidence, and said that the delay was not altogether the fault of the bankrupt. A deed of transfer in connection with the property had been lost, and a fresh one had to be prepared. There had been trouble in obtaining possession of the bankrupt’s property, and, as there were still some doubtful claims, he wanted to be in a position to call on the bankrupt for any information he might require in the future. In answer to His Honor, Mr. Medley said he would be satisfied with an assurance that Cross would come forward when called on. This assurance was given by Mr. T. P. Anderson, who appeared for Cross, and a discharge was granted on those conditions. REMOVAL OF A TRUSTEE. An order for the removal of a trustee in the estate of Sarah Haslett, deceased, was asked for by Mr. A. A. Bennett, and was opposed by Mr. C. H. Croker. Mr. Bennett said that three trustees had been appointed in the estate, and had done everything under the will except to transfer certain land to the parties beneficially entitled to it. The two petitioning trustees had submitted the transfers to the third trustee for signature, but he had refused to sign them, the refusal having the following effects, viz., it prevented the estate affairs from being wound up; it prevented the trustees from getting a clearance by filing accounts; it caused unnecessary delay in administration and unnecessary expense to the estate; and it was contrary to the interests of the persons beneficially entitled, those persons having vested interests and being entitled to transfers. In answer to His Honor, who had affidavits concerning the case in front of hhn, Mr. Bennett said that the sole reason given by the trustee of his refusal to sign was that one of the beneficiaries had asked him not to do so.

His Honor heard legal opinion for and against the order. He said that a beneficiary could not refuse to take over his estate and granted the request with costs against the defendant amounting to £l2 12s. The remaining trustees were formally appointed trustees and the property jested in them.