§ MR. KNOXI beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the present practice of the Dublin Court of Bankruptcy that the assets realised should be lodged in the Bank of Ireland in the joint, names of the official assignees and the creditors assignees, in accordance with Section 61 of the Irish Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, 1857, and General Orders 242 and 243, made pursuant to the Bankruptcy Amendment. Act, 1872; whether he is aware that in the case of Thomas F. Peel, a bankrupt, the acting official assignee, after the assets had been distributed, brought an appeal to the House of Lords against it decision, of the Irish Court of Appeal, unanimously reversing a decision in said matter, that the creditor's assignee had refused to be a party to such proceedings, though by General Order 247 the creditor's assignee is bound to exercise 939 a general superintendence over the proceedings, and that the appeal was dismissed by the House of Lords, without hearing the respondent's counsel, with costs, Lord Herschell expressing his surprise that such an appeal should have been brought; and could he state what was the amount of the costs, and out of what fund, and by whose authority, they were paid?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDThe money received by the official assignee is regularly lodged in the Bank of Ireland in the manner required by the statute and General Orders lo the credit of the estate and the assignees thereof. The hon. Member has, however, overlooked the fact that the General Orders of 1888 revoked the General Order 243 of the Orders of 1872 which he refers to. The appeal, which had been advised by two eminent English counsel, was brought after the assets had been disturbed. The creditor's assignee, on hearing that an appeal was contemplated, resigned his office, stating that he had never desired to hold it and was accordingly, by order made at his own request, removed, and the appeal lo the House of Lords was not lodged till after his removal. According to the verbatim report of the proceedings. Lord Herschell does not appear to have made any statement to the effect that the appeal ought not to have been brought, and I am informed that the decision of the House of Lords in this case was largely influenced by their decision in a case of Hebly r. Mat hews, pronounced only a few days previously, overruling a decision, of the Court of Appeal in England, on which the advice given by counsel was in some degree based. The costs named amounted to the sum of £1,006 9s. 6d., and were paid out of the unclaimed dividends account, in accordance with the provisions of the 35 and 36 Vict. c.58, sec. 77, and the 40 and 41 Vict. c. 57, see. 85.