WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 272, 15 June 1868, Page 2

WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT.

Satueday, June 13. (Before his Honor Judge Clarke.) His Honor took his seat at 10 o'clock in Insolvency jurisdiction. IN BE H. E. CAMPBELL. This was an applicatiou for a final discharge, and Mr Tyler, instructed by several of the creditors, appeared to oppose it on several grounds. Mr Campbell was called and said, I was resident in Hokitika before I came to Westport, and came here last May twelvemonth. I did not owe £l7O to the bank when I left Hokitika, a portion of it was owingperhaps£lo or something like that, (Insolvent here looked at his bank book.) No, I find it was not nor any portion of it. It was an over-draft for a current account for which I gave them a mortgage on my house here. The debt to Churches is a Hokitika debt, and was due before I came to Westport. It was incurred about Christmas, 1866, the amount is £3O. Brown and Klein's debt, £ls and costs, was due when I came from Hokitika. It was really a debt of the Groymouth Tramway Company that they undertook to pay, but which they afterwards repudiated, and I was sued on it, and a verdict got against me. The debt of Harnett & Co was also a printing account for the same company, and was to be paid in the same way. The debt due to Munson was for stationery aud books, partly incurred here and partly at Hokitika. Pi*ossers debt.was incurred at Queenstown, Otago, before I came to the West Coast. Howorth & Co's debt was for balance of agency costs, and was incurred in Queenstown. I wss not aware that I owed them more than £5 till they got the judgment. The next item £55 was for money borrowed. The examination was continued to show that this and other debts were of long standing, and were due clothes, wages, agency charges, and other things. The item due Collan, miner, is for monpy I have received of his, but I have £l4s charges against it. The debt of £4l to Munson and Tyrrell was due for geueral printing account. It was not for advertising for clients. I did not advertise for clients. Mr Tyler examined the insolvent at some length on the items in this bill a large amount of which, £l3 odd, was for the Argyle Companv. Examination continued—l receivei my costs in the cases of Gibson and Co. or Walker, to which some of the advertisements refer. In the list of debts there are agency charges due to Howorth, Adams and Kingdon, Smith and Denpsey, and A Pitt. I have not received my costs from a long list of persons for whom these charges were incurred ; for instance, I never had a penny from Gellibrand, for which A Pitt's charges are due. Some of the costs I have received, some I have not. I have paid Adams and Kingdon on account several sums making £l2 but as I have before said, I have an account against them.

The various agency bills were put into the insolvent's hands, and he was requested to point out what costs named in them he had not received, ond he pointed out several.

Examination continued—l do not know that any debts are due to me at Queenstown. I have paid Howorth moneys on account, and Smith and Dempsey also. The debt to Eanson and Clarke for £46, was for timber. I was sued for £56 13s 6d, but I had a contra for costs. I was sued by Ranson for £l4, balance of money deposited in my hands. It is a portion of £2O on the purchase of the Imperial Hotel, and a dispute arose subsequent to the agreement. The parties refused to pay me my costs, and I was only allowed £6 by the Resident Magistrate, but there was £l2 due which they would not pay me. The £2O was in a cheque. It was to be kept a fortnight, and I did not cash it till the day it was due. It was a post-dated cheque, and there was no arrangement that it should not be cashed. The sum of £45 was due to the firm of Hanson and Clarke at the time. Eanson did not come for the cheque for a month, and then only offered to pay me a guinea, although the deed had been prepared. A. Porter and Ranson have said that I had no instructions to prepare the deed, but I considered that I had instructions, and the deeds were drawn before I knew they did not intend to carry out the agreement.

The insolvent was then examined in reference to the sale of an hotel for Captain White, of which he gave an explanation, the substance of which was that he received the money for it,

£22, but did not pay it to Captain White, because the bank into which it was paid retained it as a portion of his (bankrupt's) overdraft. He paid the cheque himself into his account. Hughes and Tonka' account, £2O 7s, was partly for hoard and partly for money borrowed —£12 money and £8 hoard. The former item was borrowed on the sth of December, to be returned on the 11th ; and he made that arrangement because ho expected to be paid by Miles an account which he did not receive. On tho 23rd, owing to Eanson and Clarke pressing him, ho had to file his schedule. Fogo's account was £25, of which £2O was money lent on the 2nd of December, and it was to be paid in a month. On the 23rd he (insolvent) filed his declaration of insolvency. At that time he was in hopes of selling a mining share at Addison's Flat, for £IOO, to pay off these liabilities, but could not do so. Since that time the share has been sold by the Court for £2O, and was now realising £ls per week. In the month of July last year he received £l2O, of which he expended £S2 17s lid. One payment was £2l 19s lid for timber in erecting an office. That item did not include domestic expenses. ' The other items were all accounted for. In August he received £169, but out of tbat one client's money was £BO, which he paid out of it. The sum of £42 set down as petty cash in that month was partly summonses, office expenses, and court charges. During the six months he had given a statement he had received £914, but £l3 he had not charged, which would reduce it to £9Ol, and this left £ls unaccounted for. During that time—the six months, he paid £242 4s 9d for mining wages claims. The examination was continued at great length, but nothing fresh was elicited. It was vot concluded when the Court adjourned, in order to allow the Education Meeting to be held. On the Court reassembling the examination of Mr Campbell by Mr Tyler was resumed and prolonged to still greater length, but without showing any new feature. At its conclusion, Mr Campbell addressed the Court in explanation of a portion of his evidence.

Mr Tyler submitted that he had shown enough to substantiate his objection to the order of discharge being granted. He went through the evidence given by the insolvent himself, and contended that on a variety of grounds the discharge should not be granted.

Mr Campbell again addressed his Honor in favor of the certificate being granted.

His Honor said lie should adjourn the case till the next sittings of the Court. He thought there had been reckless conduct, and under any circumstances he should have suspended the certificate for some time. After some further discussion, his Honor thought perhaps he had better decide the question at once, and he would suspend the certificate for three mouths.

Mr Campbell : "With protection your Honor ?

His Honor: Yes. Mr Tyler remarked that in that case the suspension was of no avail. His Honor said it would do the creditors no good to shut the insolvent up in gaol, and the case terminated. In the case of T W. Melville, Mr Tyler renewed his application for execution to be allowed to issue against the insolvent. Mr Pitt appeared to oppose it, and put in an affidavit showing how it was that the insolvent had filed three times. Mr Smythe was called in support of the application, and the insolvent was examined in opposition to it. Mr Calder and Mrs Trafford were also called in support of the application. His Honor had a grave suspicion that there had been collusion and fraud in the case, and he did not believe the statements made in the affidavit. He therefore should let the order go. The insolvent asked his Honor to let him ask Mrs Trafford one question, viz., whether she had not been indicted for perjury at Brighton ? Mr Tyler would admit that she had, and had been acquitted. His Honor would greatly prefer that no proceedings against the person should be taken.

The insolvent said that he would gladly work and pay £1 per week. If he was sent to gaol it would leave his wife and children destitute!

His Honor enquired what the amount was.

Mr Tyler replied that it was £3B. Mr Pitt said he was placed in a peculiar position. He was engaged as crown prosecutor against the insolvent, but at the same time he objected to his being persecuted, as it were, through an interlocutory process.

After further discussion his Honor said that after hearing the evidence of Mrs Trafford and the other witnesses, ho believed fraud was in the case, and he should let the order go. • The insolvent then left the Court but was immediately arrested and conveyed to gaol. When it was known Mr Pitt addressed his Honor in very warm terms on the subject, stigmatising this as complete persecution. His Honor said it was clearly verywrong. He had not even made out the order, and it was evidently a laid plan. Mr Tyler considered the arrest as perfectly justifiable. Some very strong remarks were subsequently made on either side, his Honor remarking that the course taken was very indecent, after which the subject dropped. In the matter of James Godfrey.— Mr Tyler applied that a sum of money, in the hands of the clerk of the court, at Charleston, realised in the sale of goods belonging to the insolvent, at the suit of Pizzey and Co., should be handed to the trustees in the estate, for the benefit of the whole of the creditors. His Honor directed that the money should remain in the hands of the Court till a further 'order was made. After some Other formal business, the Court adjourned sine die.