Hereupon ensued a legal discussion which, with tiie ex caption of the examination of tlie witnesses for the defence occupied tie ent're day, and of which the following is a ; rcsinui', as near as may be, of the arguments. Mr Barto.i quoted the Bankruptcy Act, ISG7, and held : that it established the rules of the Supreme Court as re i garded its Bankruptcy Jurisdiction, and he thought he was , quite entitl.'d to hold a lien upon the defendant's order of discharge. He should therefore object to the production of any office espy of the same. His Hoinr—What is an office copy ? It has been the practice of this Court, for some years past, to require two i copies of an order of discharge to be lodged, one us a record | in tlie Court, and the other to be taken by the bankrupt or i the solicitor actin ."or him. ' Mr Barton ref rred to section 123, of the Act, 1867. What i did the words mean "order of the discharge shall be suffi ; cient evidence of the Bankruptcy ?" The plea of bankruptcy | was recorded, but the order of discharge was not produced ! He contended that it was necessary, by the clause quoted, to produce the original order. His Honor was strongly of ophv'on that the record book j of the Co ; :i t, or the lodging of the original order or its j duplicate were both original orders, and either could be ! used in endence. However, he would listen to further ar i gument. Mr B.irton quoted Roscoe upon Evidence ed. 1870, fo. I 10)0, as showing it was necessary to produce an order bear ing seal of the Court—not a copy of it. In the Colonial i Acts the Engl sli law had clearly been followed, subject to some Colonial adapt stious. The Supreme Court in li'ew Zealand did not require two orders to le lodged. I His Honor—No. but the Registrar entered these orders I into a look, and that book was st..inptd with ">he se..l of the i Co-:rt, mid therefore became a record from which a certified i copy could be taken. 