the bankrupt again applied for a discharge. The new judge denied the ap-
plication, but permitted the bankrupt to take an appeal.

Held: (i ) Once an order refusing a discharge in bankruptcy has been
entered the bankrupt may not thereafter make a new application for dis-
charge.

(ii) The order of a judge refusing to entertain a second application for

   discharge of a bankrupt is not reviewable on appeal.                  

(iii) If the circumstances of the bankrupt have changed since the
order refusing discharge, the proper procedure is for the court which made
the order to review the original proceedings as provided by section 88 of
the Bankruptcy Act 1929.

In re Tobias & Co. [1891] 1 Q.B. 463 followed.
Bankruptcy Ordinance 1928, 55. 55, 88 (1).

Appeal

April 21, 1936. Gorman CJ. I think the judge was right in re-
fusing to make an order contradictory to the absolute order refusing
discharge made by Mr. Flaxman on the previous application for dis-
charge. See In re Tobias & Co. [1891] 1 O.B. 463, decided on the
corresponding section of the English Bankruptcy Act 1914. But if he
was right in this, he was wrong in supposing the Court of Appeal
could assist the bankrupt: if his order was right, it cannot be reversed
and' the Court of Appeal would certainly not reverse the order quite
properly made in the circumstances by Mr. Flaxman. The proper
course was for the judge, if he thought Mr. Flaxman's order ought no
longer to operate in the new circumstances, to apply section 88 of the-
Bankruptcy Ordinance and to review the previous order made by Mr.
Flaxman. The appeal is dismissed and the case is remitted to the
judge to consider whether he wishes to review.

Bennett A.G.: I concur.
Creed I.: I concur.

Appeal dismissed