383
me that
on
putting the houses up at
~
a
according to universal practice relied
However the order for
been there
improperty
379
sale obtained in
having~
Many
last from Gibbons looked into the title
and found it defective (a duty which he was bound to have performed before
that time for expected to obtain
sale he confidently
good price. In
on
his
QDAUKAMLE
them and there made
that the details were
right
and I then
he
and there in
in open
court made the order
for
sale by auction.
I now think that order was
improvidently
so made in reliance on
Mr
Gibbons'
urgent request. Such an improvident
order will not occur
again with
me as
I have determined in future to test the
of the Registrar's
statements
as to minors'
details by previous private examination of the papers, a labour never
imposed
on a Judge.
came to the court for leave to sell).
sale implied an early
The
order.
sale. If after
for
a
delay from May to September of just four months our Gibbons still thought a sale desirable, it was his duty to have applied personally to the court to have explained why he had
not sold and
why he still thought
a
sale to be desirable and to have asked the authority of
the
court for
a sale under
the
new state of circumstances. This Mr. Gibbons omitted to do:
However
again
Dec.