COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 217, 19 June 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

DISTRICT COURT.— Yesterday. (Before Tiros. Beckham, E3q.. Di3trict Judge). IN BANKRUPTCY. in re Dixon brothers. This was an application by Mr Floyd, trustee in the estate of Dixon Brothers for a complete execution of a deed of assignment. Mr Whitaker applied for the applicant, and Mr Tyler for Dixon Brothers. On the application of the learned counsel the rule obtained in this case was discharged with costs, The following cases were adjourned until next Court day in the absence of Mr Macfarlane, official assignee, and on the application of Mr Dodd—James Marriott, C. Stephenson, J. Hicks, J. Hall, J. W. R. Guilding. COLEMAN V. DIXON BROTHERS. This was an action to recover the sum of £99 for work and labour. It appeared in this case that plaintiff had signed a release, which was a bar to the aetioD, and it was accordingly struck out.

A. B. BAIN V. UNITED KINGDOM G.M.O. This was an action to recover the sum of £IOO for services as legal manager, &c. Mr Tyler for plaintiff. Mr Bain deposed that the company was indebted to him in tho amount of £ll2 10s for salary for 2 years and 3 months as legal manager, at £SO per aumim. Ho abandoned the excess over the £IOO so as to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of tho Court, and now sought to recover £IOO. There was no appearance on the part of the defendants, and the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for tho amount claimed, with £6 18s, costs. WESTON BROTHERS V VALE OF AVOCA G.M.O This was an application for a windingup order on an unsatisfied judgment. Tho defendants did not appear. The Court ordered tiie company to bo wound up in the terms of tho Act. IN RE SOUTH LEAD G.M.C. This was an application to confirm tho schedule of contributories. Mr Dodd appeared in support of tho application. Mrs Hannah North said she was a married woman, living at Wangarei, and had no interest whatever in the company. She had travelled all the way from Wangarei, and lett. eight children behind, at considerable trouble and inconvenience, and wanted her expenses, £9 6s. Mr Beckham said it was only equitable and right that she should receive compensation, if the company had made a mistake in inserting her name on the list. Mr Dodd said Mrs North’s name appeared in the register for 250 shares. Mr Beckham said, oven if such were the case, if she was a married woman, nothing could be done with her. Mr Dodd consented that the Indy's nnmo should be struck out, and that she should be allowed £7 10s for expenses.

Mr Snodgrass, official produced the list of contributories, &c. The schedule was ordered to bo confirmed, and Mrs North’s name struck out. IN RE DIXON BROTHERS. Mr Tyler, for the trustee in this estate, applied for a declaration of complete execution of a deed of arrangement. No objection being made, the application was granted. IN RE DAVID WILLIAMS. Mr Macdonald for bankrupt; Mr Tyler for Mr Buchanan, the trustee. This case was adjourned from last Court day for the receipt of the report of the trustee, Mr Buchanan. The report was very unfavourable, stating that bankrupt had bought goods on credit and sold them by auction ; had kept no proper books of account; had evaded the service of a summons, and had been unwilling to assist the trustee in the investigation of affairs, and bad “ cooked up ” his accounts with a view to mislead his creditors. Mr Macdonald objected to the reception of the report, as it was in point of fact not the trustee’s report, but that of the accountant (Mr Perston), who had been employed to assist him. It appeared that the trustee had “ embodied ” the accountant’s report in his own, and the Court held that it could not bo excluded. Mr Tyler submitted that upon such an unsatisfactory report the bankrupt was not entitled to bis discharge. He was opposed by all his creditors. Mr Macdonald said the report was a onesided and vindictive one, and ought not to prejudice the bankrupt. _Mr Tyler said if there had been any vindictiveness in the matter the report would have been much stronger than it was.

It was agreed that the case should stand over until next Court day, in order to give time for tho bankrupt to meet the charges contained in the report. The case was accordingly adjourned until the IGth July. IN RE DIXON BROTHERS. Mr Tyler said a rule nisi had been obtained, calling upon Richard Toomey and Nicholas Toomey to shew cause why they should not be restrained from proceeding in an action against Dixon Brothers, under the Contractors’ Debts Act. The Toomeys, he contended, were not entitled to avail themselves of the process after the execution of the deed of arrangement made between Dixon Brothers and their creditors. The learned counsel applied that the rule should be made absolute.

Mr Macdonald appeared to show cause against the rule, and contended that there was nothing before the Court to show that Toomey Brothers intended to avail themselves of the process, and that it was premature that they should he called upon to-day to he restrained from availing themselves of the process which had been issued. Mr Tyler replied, contending that in equity and justieo the rule should be made absolute. If the Toomeys were not restrained from availing themselves of the certificate under the Contractors* Debts Act, they would pocket 20s in the pound, to the injury of ali the other creditors. The Court observed that there was a difficulty in the case. The Court was asked to make absolute a rule to restrain defendants from availing themselves of something which really was not yet in existence at present. He thought if notice were given under the Bankruptcy Act, it would be a bar to any action, but at present the application to make the rule absolute was premature, and he must order the rule to be discharged. Rule was discharged accordingly, with costs, £3.