Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6656x8704 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

Sato anS Criminal
tart*.
INSOLVENCY COURT.
ADELAIDE : FRIDAY, APRIL 15.
[Before His Honor Mr. Commissioner Stuart.]
In the matter of the deed of James Crawford
Hiscox, of Adelaide, bookseller; and in
the matter of an application by the creditors
as to whether they can rank under the
assignment for the sum of 12s. Cd. in the
pound or 20s. Mr. Stuckey for creditors.
Mr. Upton, for the trustee, submitted
that the mere fact of tbe composition
not having been carried out was enough itself
to remit the creditors back to the original
debt. He cited Robson, p, 272—"Even
though a release be in terms absolute, still if
the circumstances are such as to make it Inequitable
that the creditors should be bound
by it, they will be allowed to set up their
original debts, as where the debtor has, without
the knowledge or in fraud of the other
creditors agreed to give some particular
creditor an advantage over the others, as an
inducement to accept a composition;"
Edwards v. Hamchire, 1 C.P.D., p. Ill; and
argued that the creditors were induced to
sign the lease by the misrepresentation
of Hiscox. He cited Knight
v. Hunt V. Bingham's Reps., p. 433.
On the misrepresentation of the debtor the
general body of creditors suffered a pecuniary
loss, and the misrepresentation was
that the family creditors had agreed to and
authorized Hiscox to say that they would
not enforce the claims in the estate until 12s,
6d. in the pound had been paid. Quoting
from ^Addison on contracts, p. 1,146, he
urged that " quality was the only principle
that conld be applied, and if one creditor
unknown to the general body of the creditors
entered into an arrangement for his
own benefit, that arrangement could not
stand." Mr. Stuckey opposed the application,
and did not deny that there was some
sort of arrangement between the family
creditors and the other creditors, but the
tenor of the release was rather in favour of
the other 'creditors. This «was a {conflict
between the family creditors on the one hand
and the trade creditors on the other; the
composition bills were taken in satisfaction
of the original debt. His Honor said he
could only look upon the release as a private
arrangement, not as binding in insolvency.
Mr. Stuckey said he admitted that it
was a private arrangement and binding
only upon those who signed.
Where the intention was to substitute a composition
for the original debt the non-payment
of the composition did not revive the
original debt. (Robson, p. 277.) It was in
evidence that the intention of (the parties at
the time was to substitute the 123. 6d. debt
for the 20s. debt. Whether or not the old
bills and debts were joint or not the new
bills and debts were separate. The original
debt was to be paid by the two Hiscoxes, but
the new one by J. Hiscox; new bills,
new .debt, die'erent mode of payment,
and a different party to pay, were
introduced and the old debt extinguished
The question was whether the release was
binding, and whether it did not extend to a
new debt, and the question was what was
equitable at the time the bargain was made.
The family creditors might be barred from
sueing until the term was np, but not from
proving. He cited Hyde & Watts, XH Neeeon
and Wellsley, p. 254, and Small v.
Marwood, IX, Barnwell and Creswell,
p. 303. That case showed that a release
of this kind barred the debt. It
would be unfair to allow the creditors,
after getting their dividends under 12s. 6a.
arrangement, to go back to the original debt,
which he contended was a joint debt. It
was now two years since the deed was made,
and it was too late now to go back as proposed.
The point was whether the release
was a release conditional upon the payment
of the composition. HiB Honor intimated
that he wonld reserve his decision.
In re J. W. Davies, of Adelaide and Prot
Augusta, watchmaker and jeweller. Mr.
Stock for the trustees, Mr. H. E. Downer for
creditors, Mr. Solomon for Melbourne creditors.
Mr. Stock, who had previously applied
for an extension of time to carry on'the business,
now intimated that the trustees had
received notice to qnit the building in which
the insolvent's business was conducted,
the .terin being about expiring, and the
application now was for permission to
remove and store ia safe keeping the
unsold portion of the stock in order that it
might fce sold by auction shortly after the
Exhibitiop, when there was a probablity of
better prices being realized, as there would
be mar>y visitors to the colony at that time.
After some discussion Mr. Stock said owing
to the altered circumstances he would apply
next Tuesday for an extension of the time'to
May 9 (or carrying on the business. This
was agreed to.
LOCAL COURT.
ADELAIDE: THURSDAY, APRIL 11.
[Before His Honor Mr. J. M. Stuart, S.AL]
Thirty-nine unsatisfied judgments were
disposed of.
J. TRUSCOTT V. DARLING.—£12 Is. 9d„ for
goods. Mr. Lathlean for plaintiff. Judgment
for amount.
W. VANDOME v. DICK ARTHUR —£S IS. 61.,
for goods. Mr. Gepp for plaintiff. The
defendant was an. aboriginal, a black tracker,
and the claim was for a gold chain and watch
and for_balance of a former account. Defendant
said he sent the goods to the pawnshop.
Judgment for amount, to be paid by 10j. a
month.
R. ROBERTSON V. HITCHINS -£7, medical
attendance. The debt was uot dispjted.
Judgment for amount.
POLICE COURTS.
ADELAIDE : FRIDAY, APRIL 15.
[Before Messrs. S. Beddome. P.M., J.
Mackillop, J.P., J. Williams, J.P., C.
Davies, J.P., and R. E. Lucey, J.P.]
Alexander Irvin, for drunkenness and
using indecent language, was fi. ed £2. Ellen
Qoodall was referred to Dr. Ma yo on a charge
of beiDg a pauper lanatic. Emily Christian,
for drunkenness, bad to pay 10s. August
Wolf was charged with having no visible
means of support. Evidence showed that the
defendant went about trying to sell a pawnticket
for a gold keyless watch and shain for
£2 or 30s., which he allrged his faiher gave
him, and was worth £25. The - itch was
held by a pawnbroker named B.aom. Defendant
also tried to obtain pledges from
another pawnbroker to selL He took a
gentleman to see the watch, and Bloom
refused to produce it. Next day defendant
said he had lost the ticket, but would get
another. Detective Hampton arres Fed
prisoner and took him to Bloom's, and he
theii threw three pawn tickets behind
the counter. Remanded till April 19.
Wi'l'tam Eonnor was charged with falsely
representing himself to be a bona fide traveller
at the Black Lion Hotel, Hindmarsh, at
11.50 p.m. on April 3. Defendant pleaded
guilty, and was fined £5 and costs. Mrs.
Capstick pleaded guilty to delaying to admit
the police at the Gasworks Hotel, and was
fined £5 and costs. Alexander McGregor,
landlord of the Oddfellows' Hotel, Bowden,
was charged with supplying liquor during
prohibited hours. He pleaded guilty, and
was ordered to pay £5 and costs.
Walter Robert Mortton was accused of
assaulting his wife (Emily Moreton). Mr.
Smith for complainant. Fined £5. George
Rogers was charged by Francis |Fair weather
with owing the Minister of Education the
sum of 10s. lOd. for school fees. Ordered
to pay amount, and 10s. costs. James Oliver
was charged with being in arrear with school
fees to the extent of 123. Cd., and was
ordered to pay the amount, and costs 10s.
GLENELG : THURSDAY, APRIL 14.
[Befoie Mr. H. D. Gell, J.P.]
John Moore was charged by John Anderson,
landlord of the Jetty Hotel, with forcibly
entering his house early on Wednesday morniDg
and smashing a window. Prisoner, who
was in an intoxicated condition, rang the
door bell soon after midnight in order to
obtain lodgings for the night, but being impatient
wrenched away the window bar, at
the Bame time smashing the window. Fined
£2 and costs, 15s. in all.
$