IN BANKRUPTCY.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2970, 22 August 1878, Page 2

IN BANKRUPTCY.

k:3 j. j. o'beien.

Mr Brasses applied for the bankrupt's discb" go. He slated that the creditors gave a ceriificate of discharge, and lead the 'u'uslee's report, which was favorable to bankrupt obtaining his discharge. John Joseph O'Brien, sworn, deposed —I have ghen up all my property. Order of discharge granted. BE TEEDEBICK BENNETT. „ Mr Bras3ey applied for the bankrupt's final discharge, atad read the creditors' certificate of discbarge, and trustee's report favorable: to nis obtaining his discharge. ■ ; Frederick Pennett, sworn, deposed—l have givon up everything. Order of discbarge granted.

cc GEoras s. o'halloban. • Mr Macdonald applied for the bankrupt's discbarge, and produced the trustee's report, which was favorable to the granting of the discharge. The creditors did not oppose.

G. S. O'Halloran, sworn, deposed—l have given up all my property. Order of discharge granted. EE MA.rTI^ JtfUFPHY.

Mr Stoney stated that this case had been adjourned from last Court day for the p.vociucLion of the gazettes. Every - tbing was light now. • Martin Murphy, sworn, deposed—l hive "ivea up all my property. Order of discharge granted.

BE THOS. MILLET. \ Mr Macdonald applied for the bankrupts discharge. Mr Dodd >as bankrupt's solicitor, but was not in attendance.

Mr Brassey appeared for opposing: creditors, and. stated that the statement of assets and liabilities had not been filed within the time prescribed by the Act. He said that there had been an informality in the a.lling of the meeting of creditors, as the, meeting had been called by the debtor's solicitc and not by the trustee in the estate.

Mr MaedonsM admitted that tie first objection was fatal, and thought it would be better to strike out the proceedings and commence them again. The proceedings were struck out. RE W. H. YOUNG. The bankrupt was called and did not appear, and the case was adjourned till next Court day.

APPOINTMENT OF LIQTTIDATOB,

Mr Macdonald applied to have the appointment of Mr D. G. MacDonncll as liquidator in the matter of the winding up of the Waitekauri confirmed.

The appointment was confirmed QUINT Y. J. D. GPvAXT.

Claim, £85, money received by defendant a:.d paid into a wrong account. Mr _,ras3ey for plaintiff, and Mr Alexander, of Auckland, fo: 1 the defendant.

Mr Ceighton was called to' prove a power of altovney froJi M:\ Quint to Messrs Gnat and Maedona.d, but his evidence waß unnecessary, us "it was admitted.

'i'hos. ~W. Gudgeca, swcm, deposed— I am an auctioneer car/jing on business in G.ral amstowj, and was carrying on business ii 1872. I recollect aove. lising some properly mentioned in this receipt, for sale. Jt was sold on the 18th September, 1872. I received my instructions from a Mr Kailhl/; J was not informed that there was a mortgage over the properly.. I saw J. I). Grant the day oi 1 the sale. He attended it, and I saw him afterwards. Mr J. A. Miller purchased the property for £ S5. I was told by Kaithby to pay it in to Mr G-rpnt a 1; the B?nk. .The money was paid to mp in Mr Miller's officj, and we —Mr iViller ar'l I—went to tue Union Bavk. Tiie money wag paid by promissory note. The receipt fcr the purchase money .Tv.as not written by me. I suppose iiailhbj. told me to pay the money to Mr Grant.

15y Mr Alexander—l paid the money to Grant as manager of the Bank.

James A. Miller, sworn, deposed—l am a solicitor.practising atGrahcirstown,

and was so in 1872. I was acLrog as Quint's solicitor. I recollect purchasing the property in which I now reside. £85 was the price. lam the attesting witness t'\the mortgage produced. I paid the £85 fo the auctioneer, and took the receipt produced, which is in my hand writing. I put the words " vendors " in the receipt because I expected to get a title from both Eaithby and 'Quint. I knew there was a mortgage on the property. I don't recollect any pai ticular conversation with Grant as to the titl;.

His Honor said so far as ho could tell now tho money was in the Bank. They wore not here to test, the. validity, of .the sale.

William Carrick, sworn, deposed— X am agent for the Union Bank. This promissory note for £35 was discounted for Eaithby and Miller, aud the proce -ds were passed lo Eaithby's credit. I have received no communication from Grant since the commencement of the proceedings. John E. Macdonald, sworn, deposed— I,am one of Quint's ."t^rneys under the power of attorney. I gave permission to go on with the sale. I had nothing to do with the proceeds. V C. F. Quint, sworn, deposed—l am plaintiff. On returning frou England I saw Grant, aad he tckl me to save his billet in the bank he had sold the house, and risceived the proceeds of the sale, and psid it to Eaithby's overdraft in, the ■Onion Bank. He also said/ that Raithby was overdrawn by £9". I toldhim it was my money, and he said, "1 know that," and he said that the ananager; had been down on him for giving a private overdraft to Eaithby, and asked time to repay'be money by instalments. lam sure of that. Up to the ?time Grant went away he promised to pay me when he had a turn jpf lue'e.

B/Mr Alexander—l was talking to a solicitor at out taking.proceedings, find he said " Give Jimmy time."

This finished the evidence.

Mr Alexander then addressed, tha Court, pointing out t hat everything-indi-cated that defendant had received money as manager of the bank, and had accounted for it. It was quite clear that the p!aint:ff could not recover on this declaration.

Mr Brassey replied at length, arguing that Grant had no right to give the money

to E^ithby's account. rAn* -I'-'y "• ■ His Honor said that there was no doubt but that this was an ordinary bank tran-sa-st'on,- and the plaintiff would, be * nonsuited— costs £4155. '■ .= -■< , C. G. rAEEAB V". TEOPESSOE 6COTT. Claim, £100, damages for breach of contract. r ; — ; .v ; . .' ; Mr Macdonald for plaintiff and Mr Brassey for defendant.

Defendant did not appear. Mr Macdonald said that this was an action for breach of contract. The defendant agreed to appoint' the plaintiff agent to sell certain goods?and signed a document to that effect, and then refused. The defence set up was want of mutuality, no consideration named; and fraud; but he believed that the r defendant had, left the colony. " ■,;■ ... Mr Brassc-y said Professor Scott had not left the -colony. He then took exception to the wording of the summons as it did not give the defendant's name. It staled " Scott, trading as Professor Scott." '- ' r - -XT ■'

His Honor: And you er.pect him to get off Scott free on that, do you ? Mr Macdonald said that Scott signed himself as Professor Scott.

His Honor overruled the objection raised by Mr Brassey. Mr Erassey then asked,, for an adjournment, and after -/some 'discussion Mr Macdo:iald consented if security were g'ren for the amount o? debt arid* costs.' Mr Brassey said that the usual term was to pay the costs.

His Honor vuled that if security for debt and costs we.s not given he could not grant the adjournment. The case was irltrrriely postponed till two o'clock.

On -esurcfog at a quarter past twoCharles G. Farrar, sworn, deposed—l am a chemist and druggist, carrying on business here. I.at month the defendant called on me and we had a conversation relative to some medicine >o£ which he was the owner. We entered into negotiations about making me the sole agent for the sale of the medicine We signed this document^ and I have never released > defendant from the contract. Defendant has never supplied me with the medicine, and has intimated to me that he could not, as he had received a telegram- from Kempthorne, Frosser: and Co. - saying they would not send the goods. According to j our agreement I.^was to, get a supply of 84 dozen' by the next steamer, my profit on which would have befe'n £59 10s. I was to give him £9 10s per gross for them. Scott tirade no enquiries of me as to my financial positiori. * By Mr Bra: sey: I ; t6ldhim I was dealing wiljh Kempthofne arid Prosser, and I state/now they have never refused to supply/me., I never saw a telegram from; Kejnpthorne.) and, Prosser raying that they-would not trust me.; I never agreed to give Scott a promissory "note. I was to pay Kempthorne and Prosser. By the first agreement I was to take the medicine monthly j and subsequently we altered it to quarterly. I have had no' communication with Kempthorne and- Prosser; I expected to pay for the medicine but of the sale. I did not represent to Scott that I'was trusted by Kempthorne." I estimate, the actual damage at £59 10s, I am not aware of anyone being appointed in my stead. He-examined by Mr Macdonald—lt was agreed that the first consignment was to arrive next day after I had signed the agreement. : :■■ Emily Farrar, sworn, deposed-—I ,ani wife of last witness. „,I, remember Professor Scott coming to our shop, and (hoy had a conversation about my husband being agent. The witness furtherncorro-: boratcd Lev husband's evidence. •',

This concluded the evidence,

Mv Brassey addressed the Court, after which Mr Macdonald replied at considerable length. . ...,■-. „.'-;

His Honor then gave judgment for £57 10s, and costs £5 6s.

Court adjourned.