In the Matter of HAYMAN THORNHILL, Insolvent,

In the Matter of HAYMAN THORNHILL, Insolvent, .

D. C., Colombo, 1,822.

Appeal-Delay in forwarding appeal-Insolvency Ordinance-Civil Procedure Code, 8. 438-Description of insolvent-Debt of petitioning creditor- Motion for annulment of adjudication of insolvency-Technical objections.

A District Judge has no right to delay the forwarding of a case in due course to the Supreme Court after the appeal has been perfected.

It is sufficient if a petitioning creditor's debt is proved in accordance with the form in the schedule to the Insolvency Ordinance.

The Civil Procedure Code does not affect proceedings under the Insolvency Ordinance, and an affidavit proving a debt in insolvency proceedings need not, therefore, be in accordance with section 438 of the Code, but may follow the form given in the schedule to the Ordinance.

In a petition to have a person declared insolvent it is not sufficient to state his name only, but his description and address should be given.

One of several partners of a firm having petitioned to have a person declared insolvent on the footing of a debt due to the firm, it was objected that the petition was irregular, inasmuch as the debt was not due to the petitioner only, and that he should have produced the power of attorney authorizing him to sign for the firm :

Held, that the objections were too technical to be given effect to, in the absence of some injustice suffered on the merits.

One partner of a firm may sign such petition for himself and on behalf of the others without a power of attorney from the latter.

THE facts of the case are set out in the following judgment.

Dornhorst appeared for the creditor appellant; Bawa, for in­solvent respondent; Chapman, for petitioning creditor.

20th September, 1895. BONSER, C. J.

This is an appeal by a creditor of a person who is described as Hayman Thornhill, of Colombo. Whether that person is male or female, or whether it has any occupation or business, does not appear.

The insolvent was adjudicated insolvent on the petition of one William Jenkins, who gives the vague address, Colombo. The appellant is a creditor, and he objected to the adjudication and moved that it be annulled. That application was refused, and he has appealed to this Court. The appeal was perfected on the 22nd July, but the papers were not transmitted to the Supreme Court until the 31st of August, and they were not received here till the 3rd of September, whereas they ought to have been sent on or soon alter the 22nd of July.

This detention of the proceedings was quite irregular. The District Court has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document