BETT V. STUART

.18980/45

HE Dev, Gor. Print, Melb.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STUART

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

on_Eriday, 4th.March,19h9.

BETT Ve STUART

JUDGMENT RICH J. DIXON J. WILLIAMS J.

BETT Ve STUART

JUDGMENT. RICH J. DIXON J. WILLIAMS J.

In this case the facts are in a small compass. It appears that in November 1947 a sum of £85. 4. 7 was owing by the appellant to the respondent which the appellant neglected to pay and the respondent obtained in the County Court judgment: for that amount. The appellant again failed to pay the judgment debt and on the footing of that judgment a bankruptcy notice was issued with which the appellant did not comply. The failure to comply with the requirements of the bankruptcy notice enabled the creditor to present a petition. In these circumstances the respondent was entitled to avail herself of the law of bankruptcy. There were very few facts before the learned Judge in Bankruptcy. The debtor did not go into the box and give any evidence; his counsel did not tender any evidence, although he was asked whether he wished to do so. In these circumstances the matter comes to us on appeal and we are eonfined to the evidence, such as it is, which appears in the transcript. There we can find nothing which shows that the learned Judge was not justified in making the order, I think each of us has pointed out to the appellant what the law is; we have pointed out the distinction between. this case and the case of In re a Debtor: Ex parte Lawrence 1928 Ch.D. 665, cited by the appellant. There is no evidence which suggests any agreement between the parties which might show that the bankruptcy pro- ceedings were an abuse of the bankruptcy process or that the learned Judge exercised his discretion wrongly. The appeal

is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed with costs. If and in so

a far as the respondent g@me unable to recover