AN INTERESTING CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10086, 6 September 1910, Page 6

AN INTERESTING CASE.

AFFECTING BANKRUPTCY LAW AN APPLICATION DISMISSED.

In the Bankruptcy Court at Masteiton yesterday, before His Honor Mr Justice Edwards, John 4 Robert Nicol and William Miller Easthope, attorneys for Li Chi (wife of Ah Lop), summoned the Official Assignee in bankruptcy of the property of George Grierson Cork and-. William Hugh Long, trading as Long and Go., to Bhow cause why the claim

of the plaintiff 'for £32 10s for ten weeks' rent of premises in Queen Street, Masterton, demised to bankrupts, should not be declared to be a preferential claim against the bankrupts' estate. on the grounds—(l) That the said claim is for rent, due at date qf adjudication. (2) That at the date of .the adjudication there were upon the demised premises.goods, chattels and effects belonging to bankrupts, upon which the plaintiffs could ; have distrained, but for the bankruptcy, sufficient to satisfy the said claim, (3) And upon the grounds set forth, in the affidavit of the said John Robert Nicol and William Miller Easthope, of Masterton.

; Mr P. L. .Boilings appeared for the applicant, and Mr G f H. Cullen for the respondent. Affidavits for the applicant were filed by counsel, in which the deponents were John Robert Nicol, William Milter Eastbope and Orlando N. C. Pragnell. The affidavits set out that Cork had leased premises in Queen Street from Li Chi (it was contended on behalf of Long and Cork .as partners), and that Long and Cork had been adjudicated bankrupts on the 14th June. The affidavits further stated that Long had entered into a fresh partnership with one Mrs Carr prior to the Bankruptcy but that the latter partnership had taken over the lease from Li Cui to Cork.

Affidavits for the respondent were made by William Hugh Long, Kate Bennett Carr, and. Patrick Carr, which denied That the lease had been taken over, Long also deposing that he was not intended to be a party to the lease to Cork. Mr Hollingß proceeded to state the circumstances of the case, when he was asked by His Honor to quote authority to show that a person who. was not a party to a lease could be joined in an application to show cause.

Mr Boilings claimed that in fact the lease was held lor the benefit of the partners, and hot for the benefit of one of the partners alone.

His Honor stated that it was a question of M law, and not of fact. He had yet to leara that a person who was not a party to a Jeaie could be summoned to show cause, as in this

case. - Mr Boilings, after further arguing said that after the expressions of His Honor it would be useless for him to go on. His Honor dismissed the motion, with £5 5s costs.