SHAW BANKRUPTCY.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14842, 6 December 1913, Page 14

SHAW BANKRUPTCY.

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE r. TBIARU PROPERTY COY. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. The hearing of the case Official Assignee in the estate of Walter Shaw against the Timaru Propcrtj* Co., was continued at tho Supreme Coifrt yesterday before Mr Justice Donneton. ; Mr Myers, with him Mr Kinnerney and Mr Weston, appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Skerrett, with him Mr Cassidy, appeared for tho defendant company, and Mr Hosking, with him Mr Acland. appeared for Samuel Trevurza. Mr Skerrett, in opening for the defence, said it was clear from the evidence that none of the persons affected knew of Shaw's desperate plight. Mr Myers said ho claimed that these people knew of Shaw's state. His Honour said ho understood that. Mr Skerrett said there was no evidence on the point. Continuing, ho •said the properties in the first schedule in the argument wero taken. in at values according to the balances due. [n three cases, however, the balances were tho result of exchanges of property and the true value of the properties "was consequently not disclosed. Tiro personal guarantee of the purchasers was not as a ruie considered unless the man was of very high financial standing. MORE VALUATIONS. David Stewell. of Timaru. Government Valuer, said he had been connected with valuation work for 20 years, and was familiar with land values throughout the district. He made a valuation of a number of properties which he understood were aflected by the action in June last. The valuation was made at tho instauco of the Department. Ho understood tho Department were asked by tho Timaru Property Coy. to have the valuation maae. * Hβ examined each of the properties, and his valuation was made on the ordinary basis, the market value on a sale on reasonable terms. ' The total value of the properties was £43,750. Mr Skerrett said tfi© valuation referred to all tho properties in both schedules with the exception of one situated in Otago. Witness, continuing, said that his valuation was quite an independent one. The Motukaike- property consisted of 165/ acres of purely pastoral country. A largo portion was cold, wet, sour ground, ana contained a good deal of gorse. Tho property was iji bad order. Hβ valued it -at £93(w, which was the fair market value of the land in June, 1913. Lawss property, on the Main South road, containing a small cottage and a ehed, he valued at £130. lie would not give £220 for. it. The Orari Gorge property of 502 acres was mixed Land, part being6weefc river-bed and other parts stony aud sour. It was very broken and the improvements were old ami in bad order. He valued it at £4390. He would bo very sorry for the man who paid £6777 for it.

His Honour said the property was exchanged, not sold, and in exchanges both parties put on a fictitious value. The witness said the property was up in the hills, and was difficult to get at. West's farm of 52 acres was also a broken property with 40 acres of good ploughable land, and tho remainder gullies. He valued it «t £1210, which was as. much as a man could reaaonably be expected to give for it. The Rawahapa property was in Otago. Tho Church street West property of half an aero with a fourroomed house, he valued at £465. The Pleasant Valley property of 42 acres he valued at £1145.

His Honour intimated it was unnecessary for details to be given. Ho was prepared to receive the value generally without so many details. If "the valuations were challenged, the witness could explain. .' Tho witness, continuing, said that McGill's property he valued at £975. Bartloy's property he valued 'at £300. Roxburgh farm, Claremont, he valued at £3450.

To Mr Myers: . The Government values were based on the selling values of the properties at the time the valuations were made. He did not know that West' 6 farm was recently sold for '£1470. Sales were considered a test if thero were a large number of them, bub wero not always considered. It happened that Government valuations - were below actual sales, but the terms of sale made a difference. He made no enquiries as to what the Motukaike farm was purchased for; valuers wero not supposed to know that, they had to value according to their own experience and knowledge. He did not know when he valued Motukaike that the owner had paid £2500 off the purchase money. To Mr Skerrett: Conditions as to crops, stock, etc., might affect a sale, which a vainer would not take into account. John Mundle, runholdcr, said that ho had been a n auctioneer and valuer for 33 years for she Canterbuiy Farmers' Association. H© valued the properties which .he understood were concerned in the case. The country properties he valued with Messrs Pringle and Stronach. and tho town.properties with Messrs King and Webb. Tho farm lands he valued at £27,907, and the town properties at £14,585, making n total of £42,492. The valuations were mado upon a cash basis, which wa.s either actual cash or a third down and tho balance on mortgage. He valued Motukaike at £9942. but would not care to buy it at that money. The Orari Gorge property was not worth more than £4267. ' To Mr Myers: He valued the properties in May last. Within tho last eighteen months values might have dropped a little. He made a valuation of the Motukaike property, about twelve months previoufly for mortgngo purposes. He then valued it at £6 10*3 per arre; his valuation in May last was £i>. His belief was that he did not value the property at £3 10s on the previous occasion. Alexander C. Pringle, of Timaru, retired farmer, said he had been a member of tho Land Purchase Board for Canterbury since 'its inception about ten- or fifteen years ago. He inspected and \-alned the farm properties with Messrs Mundle and Stronach, and agreed in the valuations arrived at. John Stronach, auctioneer for the Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, said he had had about fifty-fivo years' experience in valuing properties. He agreed in the valuations. of Messrs Mundle and Pringle of the properties mentioned in the agreement. ■■ Frederick Howard King, chief of the land department of Guinness and LeCren. Timaru, said that he and Messrs Mundle and Webb valued the town n-operties a*. £T4,555. To Mr Myers: The valuations were based on market values as on sale for cash. MR RAYMOND'S EVIDENCE. Samuel George Raymond, barrister, Christchurch, gave evidence that he was senior partner in the firm of Raymond, Raymond and Campbell-Timaru, and of Raymond and Stringer, ChristI church. The defendant, Frank Raymond, was a public accountant, and : had -been carrying on business in Timaru for the last seventeen or eighteen years. Mr William Raymond was accountant in the firm's office at Timaru, and Mr Walter Raymond was a partner in the Timaru firm. Mr Walter Raymond left for England in March 1912. and returned.in Jbebruary, 1913. Witness practised at Timaru until Juno 1909, when he went to England. He returned in December, 1910. when he decided to come to Christchurch and practise as a barrister here. He camo to live in Christchurch in April, 1911, and since then it was his practice to visit Timaru nearly every Saturday, aud also during the Supreme Court sessions. During his visit- to Timaru

on the Saturdays, his timo was very busily occupied." Between May, 1912. and the bankruptcy of Shaw, he had only one interview with Trevurza relating* to matters connected with tho action. With Shaw he had one business interview, and one or two casual conversations on the subject matter of the transaction. Trevurza called on him on June 3rd, 1912, but no details were entered into as to Trevurza's connexion "with Shaw. The interview took place in the morning, and lato in the afternoon of June 4th, he called in and saw Shaw. He told Shaw that Trevurza had called upon him, and wanted a squaring up of accounts, and made a complaint that he had been unable to get proper accounts. He told Shaw that knowing hira so well he thought it better to to him, and explain matters rather than send a formal letter, and order for the delivery of documents. He told Shaw it was an unpleasant thing for ono practitioner to take a client from another, particularly as Trevurza said he had numerous transactions with Shaw. Shaw said ho had been very neglectful of Trevurza's business, and was extremely blameful. Ho said he had been altogether overworked, that he was under-staffed, and he had allowed his legal business to get behind. He told Shaw that he would give him every assistance and latitude, but ho would have to get Trevurza's accounts. Shaw said he was glad Trevurza had gone to witness's firm and added that his neglect of Trevurza's business had become a nightmare with him. He told Shaw he would treat him in every reasonable way, and said he wanted an investigation of Trevurza's account and an investigation into Shaw's affairs with Trevurza generally. Shaw said he would want someone to help him, and asked if witness's office could do it. Witness asked his brother William if he could help Shaw, but replied he was far too busy with his own work. Witness then told Shaw he would have to get some outsider, and suggested two accountants. Shaw made some demur and suggested Irnrie. Witness did not know anything about Imrie's accountancy abilities and inquired of his brother. The latter said that Imrio was competent and witness agreed to him. At tlio interview he told Shaw he could not givo the matter any attention himself, but would hand it over to Mr Campbell or Mr Stringer. Shaw did not say that Trevurza owed him £11.000 or £12,000, and no sum was stated as to the amount of the indebtedness. Shaw said nothing that he was receiving money on deposit. He did not ask whether he was frightened of anything or to make a clean breast of it. He said nothing which would imply anything of the kind. Ho did not say to Shaw that if it got out that Shaw had been receiving deposits and had advanced such large sums to Trevurza it would smash him. Witness did not say to Shaw he could smash him then, but was not going to do it. Witness said nothing whatever as to where tho investigation was to take place, nor did ho say anything to show that tho affair would only bo* known to a certain group of people. Only tho ordinary instructions were giveri to Mr Campbell regarding Trevurza's affair. Witness said nothing at-the interview with Shaw that he would see whether ho could finance him. He did not see Trevurza again until"; after Shaw's bankruptcy, and he did not see anyone about Shaw's business until about October 2nd. At that time Mr Willie Raymond saw him in Christchurch to put a proposal before him to purcheso certain properties, subject to mortgage, also come second mortgages owned by Trevurza. Witness did not j entertain the proposal, on the simple ground that he was not buying from a j client. He had, not a- pennyworth of interest in the property purchased from j Trevurza. i His Honour: There is no suggestion ! of that. Witness, continuing, said that as far as ho knew, no member or employee of the firm' were interested. Personally he had never had one single financial transaction with Shaw wiiile tho latter was in practice. Later, Imrio came to sec him when Trevurza's affairs had been partly unravelled. Ho counselled Imrio to endeavour to get a syndicate or company to purchase I Trevurza's. properties. That seemed to him the best advice to give so as to have. matters, squared up to en- j able Trevurza to . get away as ho wanted. Witness had no further concern in the matter after the interview. He made no statement at all as to brokerage or costs. He had no connexion with the preparation of the options or agreements, nor was he consulted about them. He was not concerned in the execution of the agreement of December 21st, and did not see the agreement until Mr Macgregor showed it to him after Shaw's bankruptcy. On the morning of December 21st, Shaw- consulted him on a Southland mining matter. Shaw mentioned that he was getting fixed up with the Property Company that day. Witness knew generally that a Property Company had been incorporated, and was taking over the Trevurz> properties. He saw nothing unusual about Shaw that .da 3*; ho seemed to be in possession of his normal faculties. Mr Skerrett put tho question, "In what reputation did you hold Shaw on the morning. of December 21st?" Mr Myers objected. "** Mr Skerrett said that Shaw alleged Mr Raymond knew ho was in trouble on account of tho deposits. His Honour said that Mr Raymond was not mixed up in the affair at all. I The question was not important. Continuing, Mr Raymond said that be attended a meeting of Shaw's credi- ! tors on April 15th, and insisted that Shaw should file. Tho majority of creditors were in favour of Shaw not fili—g, and Shaw made a very pathetic appeal to tho creditors not to force him into bankruptcy, as ho could do better for thorn. To Mr Hosking: He looked upon Trevurza as ah average small working farmer. To Mr Myers: When he saw Trevor—a in June he knew that advances had been mado by Shaw to Trevurza, but he did not know what the particulars wore, and did nob know that until after the bankruptcy. At tho Juno interview Shaw did not tell him he had been making advances to Trevurza without security. No amount was mentioned as to Trevurza's indebtedness to Shaw. He first learnt that when Mr Willie Raymond visited him in October. At that time the amount ! was altogether about £11,000. He knew then that the bulk of that was for moneys advanced by Shaw to Trevurza. -He knew that Shaw had started practically without capital. It did not occur to witness as strange that so large a sum should be owing to Shaw. He knew that Shaw had a particularly successful career, and had also private investments. He had absolute reliance on Shaw's integrity, he had known hira from his childhood. He did not know that Shaw was receiving deposits. Mr Willie Raymond, when he came to Christchurch iv October, made no reference as to Shaw's deposits. It was not until Anril 12th that Shaw told him m the train, where they met casually, about the deposits. Shaw at no .time gave witness to understand that Trevurza's account was causing him trouble, but Shaw gave witness to understand that his completo neglect of Trevurza's business was troubling him. Shaw never used the word "desperate" iv relation to his affairs.

SETTLING WITH SHAW. William David Campbell, juniot partner iv the firm of Raymond, Raymond and Campbell, Tiin_ru, gave evidence that he had been on very intimate terms with Shaw. On June 3rd, about mid-day, he received certain instructions from Mr Raymond regarding Trevurza's matter. Nothing was added to those instructions. Witness prepared the order on Shaw to hand over the deeds, and Trevurza signed it, also the revocation of the power of attorney. A few days afterwards witness saw Shaw and -showed him tho revocation of the

power of attorney and the order. t>hnw said he had never acted under the power of attorney. He said that only the live documents were required, but witness replied that he wanted all the papers from the beginning, to make suro that Trcvurza was under no liability he thought he was free from. Shaw eaid that in a number of Trevurza's dealings there would be no agreements, only salo notes held by agents, and some of those agents were no longer in Timaru; He told Shaw he wanted all he had, and Shaw said he would look them out and hand them over; as be was leaving lie said to Shaw, •'I suppose" this is a dissolution of partnership" ; but Shaw replied that was not tho position; be had only been financing Trevurza. Shaw showed no reluctance or vexation on being nsked to hand tho documents over. After that, witness had nothing to do with tho matter until December. He knew in a general way that the negotiations for a settlement between Shaw and Trevurza had failed. He had nothing to do with tho option, and his first connexion with the affair was when Mr Stringer was about to draw tho agreement for sale and purchase. There were certain points which witness wanted to go into in this agreement. Ho was informed that the two points he wished to bo put in the agreement i had been struck out. Tho hrtrt, point j was that Trevurza was to be fully re- i leased from his dept to Shaw and from any claims that might be made against him by anyone else; the second was that his firm was to have the right to ie-open the account as between Trevurza and Shaw. On December 18th ho saw tho draft for the first time, and made no alteration when ho discussed •with Shaw in tho evening. The draft said that the vendor and Shaw would sell. He pointed out that did not represent the exact position, and altered the draft so as to make Trevurza the vendor, and the amount coming to Shaw as what was authorised by the vendor to be handed over to Shaw. I*ater on Shaw asked him if the agreement .bad been signed, and ho told Shaw it would not be signed that day. Ho said there was no hitch as far as he knew, but the company wanted to see their solicitors about some points, but it had nothing to do with Shaw. Shaw wanted to come round and see tho parties, and witness told him to come round that night. There were present tliat evening Mr Imrio, Mr Frank Raymond. Mr Shaw, and witness. He drew Shaw's attention to the alteration ho had made regarding bnaw s position in tlie agreement. Shaw agreed that he had no claim on the land. Witness then said he could not understand how Trevurza owed him what was claimed, and Shaw replied that ho had given an account ehowing how it was made up. Shaw said tho statement was correct, and witness said they would have to be satisfied with it. Ho asked Shaw where he would get all that money to advance, and Mr Stringer said. "That's tho funny thing about it. It seenm peculiar if he owes you all that you should throw away £6000." Mr Stringer added, "I suppose there's no money of anyono else's in that," and Shaw replied that it was all his own money. Shaw then talked for about five minutes about his practice, and what bo had paid income tax on, and about his speculations. Ho said he wanted to get back to proper professional work, and it would be a great relief to him to get Trevurza's matter settled. When he had finished witness said he was not satisfied, and would want all Trevurea'e. accounts investigated from beginning to end. ..Frank Raymond eaid an investigation would be necessary, and Shaw replied that he would not allow that, for it would disclose his business. Witness replied tha« it would have to be done, and Shaw said, "Then you doubt my ability to find tho money." Witness replied that was not the reason at all, and Shaw then said he must ring up his bankers. Later, Shaw said his banker would give witness a letter that he was worth £14,000. Witness said that ho had nothing to do with, it, and the " Agreement would not ■bo signed that night. Mr Stringer then said that t-ho option, had bot.ter bo extended .Mr Stringer wrote out an extension note which Trevurza, and Shaw signed, and were each given one shilling consideration. At that timo witness's firm wan acting exclusively for Trevurza. He tne members of the compary thti < they would have to get their own eol'vtor. Ho drafted another clause whereby the company was compelled to take over fIU property belonging to Trevurza whether included in the agreement or not. What ho wanted to do was to load Trevurza's liabilities on to the company. ■ His Honour said the clause would give the company Bomething they had not bought. The continuing, said that when Mr Macgregor arrived from Dunedin, the clauses were discussed. At the signing of the agreement there were present Shaw, Trovurza, Imrie. Frank Raymond, and witness. Witnese read the agreement over to Trevurza. Ho asked Shaw who was to pay for getting Trevurza'f title in order, and Shaw said Trovnrza would have to pay that himself. Trevurza became angry, and said if anything was to bo cut off his £2500 he would have nothing to do, with it. Witness told Shaw it would be a fair ■ thing foT him to pay that sum, for ! Shaw was already getting £2000 for costs. Ultimately, it was agreed that Trevurza should pay £250. Nothing was said about interest in witness's presence. When the agreement was signed he had no suspicion that Shaw was in a desperate financial position, nor did he suspect that Shaw had been using trust nioneys. He noticed nothing unusual "in Shaw's demeanour on that day.

To Mr Myers: The arrangement was that he was to superintend Imrio's investigation of Trevurza's affairs. . Hβ could not remember whether, when the option agreement was signed, ho saw the account completed by Martin. When he saw the account he was surprised at the amount account he was surprised at tho amount in Imrie and Prank Raymond objected to tbe insertion of the clauses which Mr Macgregor bad struck out. Witness had telephoned for Mr Macgregor before he saw Shaw. Ho knew in June that Shaw was financing Trevurza. He also knew from what Shaw said that Sfcaw had no title in the properties. Shaw said he was not making anything like the loss they thought he was, for as far as he was concerned it was largely a writing off of profits. Hβ thought the most Trevurza could get if all tho properties were sold for high orices for cash was £13,000, and if Shaw was to get £11,500 it would leave Trevurza with only £1500 out of his original £3000 Witness could not eeo how that position could arise with a rising market. He did not concern himself with the transactions between Shaw "and the company. Nobody asked Shaw to produce his books for inspection; witness did not ask for that; he would havo expected to be kicked out by Sliow had ho done bo. Ho saw now that the terms of the agreement were unfavourable to Shaw. That did not strike his mmd at the time; Trevurza was the man he thought was .coming badly out of it. He did net conceal himself with what Shaw was doing; Shaw conld make the best bargain he could. Cynl A. Stringer, # solicitor. Christchurch, said he was junior partner in the firm of Raymond and Stringer. Hβ was m. practice in Timaru from Febbrnary, 1912, to February, 1913. He had nothing to do with Trevurza's affair until jnst before tho option was signed on October 18th. Ho explained to Trevnrza the terms of the option, and Tremrza seemed willing to get out on these terms. Shaw's claim of £11,C00 was never admitted. Witness prepared a draft agreement of snlo from Trevurza to tho company. He discussed the agreement with Shaw, who said he would agree. to the new clauses insisted on.

PROPERTY STEPS l&v ' John linrie, •* ffir Imrio and Higgms, *»*» d agent*,' Ticiaru, said the bulk of tno firm's business consisted of the °* properties upon a common wusis. \\itm»s carried out a Teat muuy transactions during the last few years. Tho market was a rising one, aud Trevurza":* speculations should have been profitable. In April, 191::, witness was iv negotiation with .Trevurza as to - tho possibility of purchase or exchange of a property at Auckland. Ultimately witness and Trevurza went to Auckland with. Shaw's approval, but the deal did not go through- Trevurza consulted him "regarding his account with Shaw. Anc i showed him a list of properties which Shaw offered-by way of settlement of the affair. Shaw also •asked witness to act for him in coining io a settlement with Trevurza. Shaw suggested that Trevurza should take over some of the properties, and that he (Shaw) .<hould take the balanca as a sot-off of his account aguinst Trevurzji. Trevurza refused to accept the £7100 offer, and witness then asked him to say what he wanted. Trevurza reduced Shaw's valuations to £6620, added some other properties, and stipulated for £13C0 in cash. Sl'iaw refused to settle on ■tihose terms, and saw Trevurza personally, but failed to coino to a settlement. Trevursa then consulted Raymond and Campbell. Mr Geo. Raymond instructed witness to prepare sufficient particulars to enable their office to make a search of the properties, also to make out a statement of accounts as between Shaw and Trovurza. He got from Trevurza as many particulars as he could of tho properties, and made out a partial statement of accounts from information supplied by Shaw. On July 27th Shaw offered equities valued at £5944, but Trevurza would not accept. Later Shaw niado another offer of £10,660 of equities, but that also was rejected by Trevurza. Witness got a statement from Shaw showing that the balance in Trcvurzn's favour was £9200. Investigation showed that Trevurza could not hold the properties, for big claims were made, and further liabilities wero shortly due. Shaw told him he bad approached one or two men with tho object of getting them to purchase tho property. Witness told Trevurza if there was to be a sale ho would like to get tho work. Whoever bought would require capital, and witness approached Mr,Geo. Raymond, who was known to be a wealthy man. Shaw wanted £4500, with two houses and a section on the Wai-iti road, and Trevurza wanted £3000. He approached Mr Wm. Raymond to submit tho matter to Mr George Raymond. Mr George Raymond sent for him, and ho caw Mr Itavmond at Christchurch. On his return ho got Trevurza and Shaw to give options over their interests. Hβ then set about forming a company to take over the estate. Shaw offered to tako a share in tho purchasing company, but the offer was refused. Ultimately the company was formed, and the agreement of December 21st entered into. Witness consulted Mr Macgtegor, of Dunedin, and in tho purchase of tho property acted under his advice. On December 18th he was asked to agree to the reinstatement of the clauses struck out by Mr Macgregor, but he refused. When the agreement was signed he had no reason to believe that Shaw was in a bod financial position, or was suffering from financial pressure. Witness stipulated both to Shaw and Trevurza that he would not pay interest, as ho thought he was taking a big enough risk as it was. The company acquired the properties mentioned in tho options subject to all the encumbrances. They did not concern themselves with tho relations between Shaw and Trevurza. Witness went into tho company reluctantly, and would be glad to get out of it now if he could. Shaw saw him a j few days before his bankruptcy and wanted to know the balance due to him. He showed him the ledger, and. gavo him a note of the amount due, and Shaw initialled the account in caso there should bo any dispute with other parties afterwards. Trevurza owed the firm £150 for commission, and Trevurza persuaded Shaw to pay it, and Shaw gave witness an order on the company. Trevurza also owed witness personally £500 for commission, which Trevurza said that Shaw should pay under the agreement. Finally Trevurza got an order for £200 from Shaw. Ho would be willing to sell his share in the Motukaike, Orari Gorge, West's farm, and Pleasant Valley properties for what hp had paid for it, and he would get rid of the whole esate for what was paid for it pins commission and charges. He thought the other members of the company would agree to that also. The Motukaike property paid interest, but he did not know whether tho purchasers would carry on. Tho Orari Gorge farm was sold on a £250 deposit,. and there was a risk of the property falling back on them again. Ho was sure tho second mortgages would not produce their face value.

To Mr Myers: Before December 21st ho got particulars of the different properties. Hβ had a good idea of the values of the town and suburban. properties on October 18th. He was relying on Mr Trevurza's knowledge of the value of the farm lands. Witness dis-; posed of tho Motukaike farm to Don- j aldson and Taylor for Mr Trovurza. Hβ' was acting as agent for both parties,! and was satisfied with tho men who acquired tho property. His, commission was about £200. The disposal of the Orari Gorge property was conducted by witness's firm, but he did not think the-deposit paid was sufficiently large. On October 18th he had a complete knowledge of the value of the properties. He made up his mind that he would be glad'to get out of the agreefpjoqs XiaA %sjs Joqinaoag- jo after he entered into it. So had so made up his mind in March or April. He knew that there was a run oh Shaw on April 14th. He left church the same night in a motor-car to get the transfer registered. Trevurza was brought down from Auckland to sign the transfer. That was done on the Tuesday morning, and the transfer was registered. Witness knew that tho Official Assignee wanted the properties, and an offer wa3 made to hand them over to the Official Assignee. Ho was advised by "hie solicitor that the Official Assignee had not fulfilled his part. Mr Myers said an offer was made that if certain admissions wcro made by tho Official Assignee the property would be handed over on certain terms. Tho Assignee asked what those terms were, but they wore refused. Continuing, the witness said that he would be pleased to get rid of the properties for what he had paid, plus interest and charges. He prepared a par--tial statement of the account between Shaw and Trevurza, which was completed by Martin, and witness handed the account to one of tho Raymonds in September. He could not remember effecting any sales for or to Shaw up to October 18th. Hβ knew that Shaw had been speculating largely on his own account, and held mortgaged properties. Shaw ivas in a good class of property, and witness thought ho was a wealthy man. Shaw told him no was not making a monetary loss by entering into tho agreement he had; all ho was losing was part of his profits. Shaw was anxious to get rid of Trevurza's business, and tnat did not come abont until tho agreement was signed. Trevurzo was forcing a .settlement with Shaw. No commission was paid to witness on the formation of tho company. On the Saturday afternoon prior to his bankruptcy Shaw told him he was in financial difficulties. Regarding the estate taken over, witness said there were three farms for which only nominal rents were being paid. The witness was etill under cross-ex-amination when tie court adjourned till this morning.