Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
In April 1826, the complainer Paterson's estate was sequestrated by the Court, and the respondent was elected trustee. The complainer underwent the examination, and took the oath prescribed by the statute.
The sheriff found, ‘That the questions specified in the representation are reasonable, and that the answers are unsatisfactory; grants warrant accordingly to officers of court to apprehend and incarcerate Robert Paterson, the bankrupt, in the tolbooth of Stirling, therein to be detained ay and until he shall make satisfactory answers to the questions specified in the preceding representation.’
The complainer was again examined on the 17th January 1829, when a similar warrant was granted.
The proceedings were also irregular in another respect; for, although it is competent, under the statute, to apply for the re-examination of a bankrupt, after the two regular diets of examination, and after he has taken the oath required by the statute, no power or authority is given to the sheriff, at such re-examination, to put the bankrupt upon oath; and it is altogether irregular to do so.
But, considering the distance of time which had elapsed from the date of the transactions referred to, and the period of re-examination, the answers made by the complainer were as satisfactory as could reasonably be expected; and although he had not a distinct recollection of the transactions referred to, he did not refuse to answer any question put to him.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.