Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

MASTERTON. (Before His Honor Mr Justice h Chapman). ALLEGED PREFERENTIAL PAYMENT. 2 Official Assignee v. Herman Wolt larman. Mr Cullen appeared for the 3 Official Assignee, and Mr Blair for > defendant. The pleadings set out the particul- . ' ars, which were that on 29th Decern- , ber, 1908 an Act of Bankruptcy was > committed by one McGuire. On 12th , January, 1909, judgment was obtain- . Ed by Wollarman against McGuire and his partner Powys, who were ] jointly interested in hotel property. On 21st January Wollarman obtained an attachment order addressed to one Priest, attaching certain moneys. It was an ordinary trade debt. There was. no resistance offered to the order. The moneys payable by Pritst were for sale of the hotel, Priest having j bought McGuire add Powys' interest therein. The amount was about £6O. On 27th January, a week after obtaining the attachment order, one of the partners, McGuire, was adjudicated bankrupt on creditors' petition. On the 6th February, Wollarman was paid the £62, the amount attached, with charges. There was no evidence of an absolute attachment ordtr having baen taken out. On 23rd I March, six weeks after Wollarman got his money Powys filed a petition in bankruptcy. These were briefly the whole of the facts on which the Official Assignee asked fjr an order on Wollarman, McGuire was bankrupt prior to the payment of the order, and Powys, after an affidavit had been filed by Wollarman that he new nothing of McGuire's bankruptcy when he secured the attachment. He j conceded had Powys i/ot been in I the transaction the money would have to be returned, because it was a pay-

merit after adjudication so far as McGuire was concerned. This, however, Was a partnership debt, and the fact of one of the partners committing an act of bankruptcy did not affect the attachment order, and the fact of the order having been paid the order became complete by the act of payment. For the Official Assignee Mr Cullen claimed that the act of bankruptcy made the order null and void. That the firm had completed an act of bankruptcy. The attachment was interlocutory and not made complete. The. act of bankruptcy consisted in a return being made of nulla bona in the estate of McGuire. His Honor stated he would take time to consider the points raised.

I APPEAL. i Thomas R. Herbert and another v. Wairarapa Farmers' Co-operative Association, Ltd. Mr Rollings, for appellant, said this was an appeal from the decision of Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., at Eketahuna. The particulars were that the Wairarapa Farmers' Co-operative Association had a bill of sale over certain articles of one Green. That was a box belonging to Mrs Green not included in the schedule. That Green with the consent of his wife gave the box and contents in pledge to Herbert as securty for a debt, and allowed him to have possession of same, label it "Herbert and C 0.," and put it into another room. Subae-, i quently Herbert removed the box, and theWairarapa Farmers' Co-opera-tive Association sued him tor the return of the box and contents or £SO. Judgment was given in favour of the Wairarapa Farmers' Co-operative Association,' and entered up for the return of the box to plaintiff or payment of £SO and costs. Plaintiffs at the same sitting asked the Magis- ' trate to make the verdict for £SO, and the plaintiff to keep the box. The Magistrate agreed to consider it, and subsequently a month later, Mr Graham gave his judgment for £SO. Mr Hollings quoted cases to show the Magistrate could not alter his decision after having entered it up, except at the same sitting:. Ihat the Magistrate was wrong in law and in fact, and the box was the property of Mrs Green, and could not be pledged by Green. For the defence Mr Page submitted that the box and contents were included in the schedule of goods in the bill of sale given by Green. He made lengthy references to cases bearing nn the subject, and his Honor said he would take time to considsr the arguments. I This concluded the sittings of the court.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19100304.2.27

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 986, 4 March 1910, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
696

SUPREME COURT. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 986, 4 March 1910, Page 5

SUPREME COURT. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 986, 4 March 1910, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert