SUPREME COURT. — CIVIL SITTINGS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 111, 24 March 1870, Page 6

SUPREME COURT. — CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Condensed from the " Daily Times.") Friday, March 18. ('Before His Honour Mr. Justice Ward, and a Special Jury.) n^RROP V. CROKER. - The plaintiff waa Jonas Harrop, who sued on behalf of himself and all the other creditors of Edward Croker ; and the defendants were Edward Croker and his son, John Louis Croker. Mr. James Macassey and Mr. B. C. Haggitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. 11. Harris for the defendant, J. L. Croker. Mr. Haggitt opened the pleadings, and Mr. Macassey laid the facts before the jury. The following issues submitted to the jury, and the answers given thereto, Avill give our readers a, good idea of the nature of the case :—: — 1. Was the defendant, Edward Croker, prior to the twenty-second day of March, 1865, embarrassed in his pecuniary affairs, insolvent, and unable to satisfy his debts ? Yes. 2. Were the debts due by the said Edward Croker, or any of them, contracted prior to the said twenty-second day of March, 1865 ; and do the said debts, or any of them, still remain wholly unsatisfied and unpaid 1 Yes. 3. Did the defendant, EdAvard Croker, Avhile largely indebted to his creditors, apply for, and, on or about the said fourteenth day of September, 1868, obtain a Crown Grant of section thirtythree, block one, Tuapeka district (in the said declaration, and in the said Crown Grant, particularly described) ; and was the said Crown Grant issued in the name of the defendant John Louis Croker, as in the declaration alleged ? Yes. 4. Waa the said section thirty-three, block one, Tuapeka district, previously to the issue of the said Grant, held, occupied, and enjoyed by the said defendant, Edward Crocker, under an agricultural lease obtained by him in the name of the said John Louis Croker, as in the declaration alleged ? Yes.

5. Was the said agricultural lease obtained by the said defendant, Edward Croker, for his own benefit, and were the rent, fees, and other moneys payable in respect of the said lease paid by the said. Edward Oroker out of his ©Avn moneys ? Yes, paid by Edward Croker. 6. Did the said Edward Oroker occupy

and enjoy the said' section thirty-three, block one, "Tuapeka district, and bnild. upon and improve the same to a large amount, and afterwards pay the purchase money for and in respect of the said section 1 Yes.

7. Is the defendant John Louis Croker a son of the defendant Edward Croker, and was he, at tho time of the occurrences mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of the declaration} an infant of tender years, without any means or property of his own, and living with and supported by his father, Edward Croker 1 Yes, and he was at that date an infant of tender years.

8. Was the defendant Edward Croker at the date of the application for the agricultural lease, in the 3rd paragraph of the declaration mentioned, and subsequently up to the date of the purchase of the lands comprised in the said agricultural lease, embarrassed and insolvent 1 At the date of the application there is no evidence to prove the defendant was insolvent ; but, subsequently, he became embarrassed and insolvent.

9. Did the said defendant, Edward Croker, obtain the said agricultural lease, and purchase the said section No. 33, block L, in the name of his said son, John Louis Croker, solely in order to defeat, delay, hinder, and defraud his creditors, and in order that the said section. 33, block 1., Tuapeka district, might be free from the legal control of his creditors, and not liable to seizure, attachment, or execution for his debts 1 As regards the application — no ; as regards the subsequent purchase — yes. 10. Did the said Edward Croker, while hopelessly embarrassed and insolvent, raid while indebted to a large number of persons who still are his creditors, purchase and apply and arrange for the issue in the name of the said John Louis Croker, of a Crown Grant for section 32, block 1., Tuapeka district, in the said declaration, and in the said Crown Grant, particularly described ? Yes. 11. Was the said section 32, Nock 1., Tuapeka district, purchased by the said Edward Croker Avith his own moneys for his own benefit, and to the end and intent that he might benefit by and enjoy the said section ? Yes.

12. Has the said Edward Croker always used and enjoyed the said section 32, block 1., Tuapeka district, as his own, and exercised right of ownership over the same 1 Yes.

13. Was the sole motive and object of the said Edward Croker, in applying for a Crown Grant for the said section 32, block 1., Tuapeka district, in the name of the said John Louis Croker, simply to defeat, delay, hinder, and defraud his creditors ? No.