THE LEACH ESTATE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1056, 18 January 1883, Page 3

THE LEACH ESTATE.

At Tuesday's sitting of the District Court, before His Honor Judge Ward, Mr Hamersley, instructed by Mr Austin, applied on behalf of Job Brown, J. Marshall and J. Roddick, creditors of Leach, for a i order to remove the trustees, James Blyth and George Bolton, on the ground of irregularity in the manner of their election,

Mr White, appeared for the trustees to show why the application should not be granted.

This was an inquiry into the validity of the election of Messrs Blyth and Bolton as trustees of the estate of David Leach, of Temuka. The affidavits filed, and the minutes of the meeting of creditors at which the election took place, showed that a great deal of interest was taken in the appointment of trustees. First, Messrs J. Blyth, J. Brown and W. Davidson were separately proposed as trustees. Then it was affirmed by reeolutioif that

two trustees should bo appointed, and Messrs Blyth and Bolton and Messrs Blyth and Brown were nominated for the office. On its being put to the vote, eight of the creditor? present voted for Blyth and Brown, and thirteen against, and then for Blyth and Bolton thirteen for, and so far as the record shows, none against. Messrs Blyth and Bolton were therefore declared duly elected trustees of the estate, and proceeded to perform the duties of that office. Some of their acts apparently were not satisfactory to certain of the creditors, and an attempt was made to oust them from office. The chief grounds upon which the applicants proceeded was that a creditor proving for a Urge amount, and taking part in and voting at the election was the manager of the Bank of New South Wales at Tiraaru, whose proof of debt did not show that he was authorised to prove claims in bankruptcy, and the debt proved by him consisted largely of notes and bills discounted, which notes and bills were not produced at (he meeting as they ought to have been. It was claimed that, this proof of debt was quite invalid, that his vote was consequently invalid, and as his vote influenced the election the trustees ought to be declared improperly elected, and either a trustee be appointed by the Court, or a fresh election held. Some other creditors also proved claims comprising amounts due on bills, which bills were not produced, but Mr White showed that this objection would cut both waySj as persons voting both for and against Blyth and Bolton neglected to produce bills, and that, striking out all votes given on claims of this kind, the remaining votes were largely in favor of the present trustees. A good deal of time was spent in arguing whether promissory notes and bills should be produced by creditors in proving claims founded on such documents, and before taking part in elections. A case was repeatedly referred to {Eo; parte Jacobs in re Carter, 43 ' Law Journal,' p. 46) as showing the settled practice in bankruptcy at Home to be that such securities must be produced,the reason for it being that the production of a note or bill is necessary to prove that it is really in the hands of the claimant, and not of some other person. ' liobson on Bankruptcy ' (p. 245), was also quoted to the same effect—Bills or notes on which proof is made must be exhibited to the trustee before payment of dividend, and ' also before the holder is allowed to vote,'counsel on both sides quoting the so authorities.

No oral evidence was taken, the case being decided upon the affidavits and arguments of counsel. After a patient hearing His Honor refused the application, with costs. Thegroundon which he upheld the election was that thirteen of the creditors present at the meeting voted in favor of the present trustees and none against. He considered that in oral voting ' silence gives consent,, and the absence of opposition was tantamount to an unanimously favorable vote. The manager ot the Bank certainly ought not to have voted. His Honor pointed out that while the applicant Brown was seeking to upset the election on the ground that bills and notes had not been produced he was in exactly the same position himself, and even worse, as the bills he claimed were scattered through n long account of goods, so that it required careful looking through to ascertain that any bills were included, and they were not particularised in aDy way. He considered this proof bad as well as the Bank's.

This concluded the business of the session and the Court adjourned.