DISTRICT COURT

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3168, 1 April 1889, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT

(Before District Judge H. W. Robinson), HONDA? APRIL I, BLY V, BBIGOS. Mr Bunny, for defendant, addressed the Court, submitting that under the first agreement on 6th April, Bly was made acquainted with the position of the title to tho disputed property; that the letter subsequently written by Brigga in which he said Bly could take possession as all difficulty waa settled, only Hated to the Assignee's title under the Bankruptcy laws, and that Briggs stated ho would not bo responsible for any delay in tho transfer, but would secure a rated title; He maintained that after being four months in peaceable possession Bly allowed himself to be ejected by the bankrupt Hull without taking reasonable and forcible means to resist eviction or recover re-possesion of his property. Hull was liable to be prosecuted for forcible entry; illegally impounding; could have been bound over to sureties'of the peace provided against under the Police Offences Statute. The* proceedings taken by Bly at Woodvillo must either have been an error oi else the Justices did not discharge their duty, and they should have been compelled to do so by mandamus, He submitted that the defendant had proved all the affirmative matter ho set-forth, and he claimed,that his "client was entitled to judgment. Should the Court be against him in that there was thequestion of damages. He pointed onfc that plaintiff was e'li illifiirato mato rt was gen*

rally found such persons; had :# fM retentive memories, ifot, to say, plaintiff could remember^ j|,l; nothing'of the items'of the 'bill? particulars, and the fact was his made iip the statement for him. :.In ||s: order that the other aide could WmtiiysJit must lie shown representing a -state of facts that haM'iknew to be untrue, and that he aub-^;;. mitted was not so, Under the whole' j; circumstances he siibmuted that his o: client was entitled to a judgment. ;■; He asked the Court to say whether ;V./ the defendant bad carried oul his /;•; contract with plaintiff by putting him in possession of the property, and whether defendant had made misrep'reeentations lri^the-transactions. MrTc-Mwill said'the'section being purchased tinder part 5 of the Ufeji ' Act ;1885 do'es riot .boloflfc TfP^^J Assignee in ■tf epid/d n*M pTOto'lcompel license issued .by 'the Land His .Worship the' decided ;that|he Court hail no •to' ip transfer;. ' ''■ •■ /' " ■ , .', v v,Mr/Tosswill jaid on'.March It ••? IMBoard wrote'to Mr Bunny statin?" ';- • they had no power to grant the:, request to make a.transfer. dense of Mr f Wiig&i.wjmt" - \ 1 thallaatThuftdaylhemrddeJ|l".",'[ 1 they had no powjr'to interfere? ■■■-). ' Mr Tosswill ..having concluded a -A lengthy summing up His Honor v. 1 intimated that lw would deliver | 1 judgment.in writing through the 7 ! Clerk of the Court at Masterton after V his return to Wellington, probably., vithin a fortnight. In ise Adam Armstrong. Application to sot aside an order of' -Xi

the Clerk of the Court to deliver up possession of certain property at Carterton to the Official Assignee. Mr Middleton- for applicant, Mr Beard for Official Assignee. His Honor said he had carefully looked thiough tho affidavits under which the Gltvk was called upon to act, and also his notes of the viva voce evidence. He found Armstrong bought Jm property from one Applin in £-_w>i 1886 and became bankrupt oßih April, He entered into poßsessioTon 7th July wd received his bankruptcy discharge on 25th September, so that the purchase was made .before, and he took possession after his_fk. rnptcy but before his disdffl. The defence was that it did not-form part of the property vestvd in the

Assigned, and tho evidence went to show that. There could be no doubt the property belonged to Armstrong before he had become bankrupt and was vested in the trustee. It waß stated that no monpy had been paid in purchase. If the

matter had stood as it did at'the time

of the bankruptcy it would simply have been a bargain, which not.being in writing was of no value. But the bankrupt having been put in possesion it was a part performance of the contract and gave him

an equitable interest. That being I before hfsdischargo the said equitable 1 right would vest in the Trustee. Tho ■ whole question then was whether tho purchase had been made for the wife or for Armstrong. There was a great deal of contradictory ovidence which ho had carefully gono through, together with the affadavits, rxL he had come to the conclusion, thS-p Clerk was justified in arriving whe decision that it was tho tbebwkruptand therefore the Trustee. The weight of evidence justified the Clerk in his decision _ wuioh it would not he proper Ip-Jli*" turn. ■ Tho application was refused with ■ costs JE2 [Left Sitting.] -