BANKRUPTCY COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 216, 5 June 1908, Page 8

BANKRUPTCY COURT.

THE CASE OF E. J. SEARL. MORE INTERESTING EVIDENCE. Tho public examination in bankruptcy of Edward John Searl, restaurant-kccpor, was continued yesterday afternoon before Mr.' D. Q. A. Cooper, Registrar of 'tho Supremo Court. 'Mr. Myers : appeared on behalf of the Official Assignee, Mr. Dunn for tho debtor, Mr. Petherick for T. P, Lyons, and Mr. Ayson for • other : creditors. ■ Mr. Petherick examined thg debtor. Bankrupt stated that Lyons saw every account when it was entered. Bankrupt received from Turnbull, Hicks, and •Gooder a sum of £5 duo to tho firm. He entered the payment in his diary, which was part of the firm's books. ' Ho did'not tear leaves out of tho diary, and lie thought that it contained entries from the beginning of tho firm's existence. This payment was not entered in the firm's other books' because Lyons did 'not want Morris to know, of its_ receipt. A summons had,been issued against Lyons by the Gear Company,: and ho did not want Morris to know of tiiat. The firm was also being pressed for rent •by Messrs. Skerrett and Wylie. He did not; know that Lyons ever had the receipt for this money in his pockot. Did you, not put the money in your own pocket?—lf you ask. those questions j;ou'll have to answer them.''-.,; The Registrar: Answer.the question. ■ Debtor: I'm not going to bo insulted. The debtor stated that'those • insinuations were only being made in view of another case. Did you put tho money/in your pocket?— I did not.. Did you remember Lyons pressing me on October .20 to tako note, of the book debts outstanding?—No,.l don't. _ _ Do you remember some mention of prosecution being'then mado?—No; thero was no such, suggestion. . -V ' ■ . • _ Debtor, stated that lie to, Mr. Dunn tho £5 received from.Turnbull, Hicks, and Gooder, and paid- to' Mc's'srs. Skerrett and Wylie; for rent, £10 out of £12 received from tho Letter-carriers' Union. There were times when' there was [absolutely no money m the partnership.. .Ho had .to. borrow Dunn--to-.".carry .'on 'from, day to day, and Lyons had to'borrow for tho same purpose, At'any'time the partnership might be owing Dunn or Lyons something, which would be ; paid back from receipts of the-following days; Ho had even paid money out of his owr pockot. when creditors wero pressing, anc received 'it . back from the firm afterwards Lyons had done tho same tiling. Witness had had to borrow from- Dunn to £et th< lunch on, and the next. day ho had repait the amount. ' ' . .What was Morris,-employed for?—To keel

the' books. •• i Then,' if yon kept back information from him, he could.not keep tho books correctly?Witness agreed that tho hooks were not correct in regard to four irfatters which had not been ontered. The entries were riot kept'out of the'books to deceive: creditors) but for tho reason ho had _ . But when you owed £450 at the time, there was not much point in-keeping facts from Morris, was' there?— Lyons wished to keep from him the-' fact that: he had IJeen summoned—not Searl and Lyons. He said it 'was the" first summons ho had received m

.his life. j. i Mr. Petherick: I' expect that s . news to him, Mr.ScarL (Laughter.)' ' I ' Tlio bankrupt was next questioned as to the disposal of electric light fittingsi, at the Duba Street establishment. Ho stated, that the fittings that were, of "'so taken iown and put up in the Willis. Street premises; and those that were llot of use were left behind, and were still in the old quarkm o debtor stated that on October 7he paid £10. to Mr. Dunn on account of the summons of Young and Tripe for the Gear Company, in respect of a debt of U7 iis. fad. Ho also paid Mr. Dunn on October 10 £o, October 17 £1' 10s., and October 31 £7 7s. Gd. Ho might; have paid him £10 on October 1, but not for the Gear Company. He could not say-where tho money camo from. Certain money, which ho paid from his own docket, was borrowed for'the purpose. How 'much bavo you, had from; your wife altogether.'—1 1 believe about £800. . I know she 'is £800 worse off to-daj' than she was. -. Debtor stated that ho borrowed from A. C. Elliott £36, on personal security. He _did not consider that he owed Lyons anything. Can : you < explain liow you got through such'a large sum in such a small time during tho I partnership? .In addition to-tho debts you 'paid during the partnership, you were in debt to the amount of £452 at dissolution.—!' can't tell. how. Tho only money spent was on improvements and fitting up the place, and unforeseen things that cropped Ul l)eb'tor. ( stated that it cost about £400 to fit up tho place. Lyons and ho had both contributed. At tho request of Mr. Petlierick, debtor Enumerated a list of items in tho fitting up, but they only reached a total of £150. , ~•• no-n'o How can you account for the other I am not going to account for it. It V s all shown by tho books. Debtor stated that he had contributed 30s. to tho partnership for every 20s. found by Lyons. As soot as Lyons camo in he mossed up tho business. Lyons contributed £20.0 in the .first place, overy penny of which was spout in the busiiaess. '' ', •, . , . The debtor stated that ho was not going to accept Mr. Petherick's figures, while ho (tho debtor; was, up thero for a target for a purposo. - . Can you explain why, on September b, tho takings'were'as low as £2? Debtor replied that ho coulcl not, ; but no ono ooukl have scrutinised the takings, more carefully than Lyons did. Lyons had examined the girls dockets, and kept so close an oye on things, that there was no room, for-any insinuation that tho debtor had taken tho money. He had never robbed Lyons of a shilling. Mr. : Pctherick stated that tho September receipts wore £29G ls. 5d., and the disbursekeht £269s 3s. Gel. Ho wished ■to know what had become of tho' difference?—l lie elebtor: replied that a payment which he had made for rent was' not included m tho disbursements. ' •■"' , . Then can you explain why Lyons had to pay it again?—l only :know that I paid £56 for rent in September that is not' in the books. ■ . . Was that borrowed monoy?—Partly. Was there • not" some' money spent on ladies ?—What' 'do you moan ? Was th,ero not a good deal of extravagance in your relations .with the servants? Nono of any kind. Ho borrowed a good deal of money during, tho partnership, and it was exponded on partnership purposes. He was suing Lyons for £1000 for alleged slander, and if he got it his creditors wouM have first consideration. ,His wifo went guarantee for'the costs. She had no money from him. Ho (lid not know exactly tho amount he had borrowed, as he : had paid some back. Debtor recoiyed about £90 from Mr. Dunn. Mr. Myers: .When did you first have business arrangements with Mr. Morris?— Shortly after we started m Willis Streot. I first met him in Eketahuna about fifteen years ago. . , Debtor stated that ho borrowed money to lend to Morris and to others also. He borrowed tho money from Jupp, aftei being in partnership with' Lyons, whom he joined in June. Ho could not explain how it was that the promissory note was dated April 16. Ho borrowed cither £10 or '£12 from Jupp; this was tho only sum. . Mr. Myers: Are you surprised to know that tho amount of tho bill was £30?— I can't tell you, except that it might have been mixed up with tho transaction with there anything in tho books relating to the transaction with A. C. Elliott.— I think there is,something in a diary. It was only a matter of accommodation for a fC Mr d °Mvors: You lead tho public to supVbat vou had an asset worth £500 or £600 Is it not a .fact that the furniture and premises wore only loascd to you. YC Is tho rent in arrear P—lt may. bo You had a lease of tho premises from Dennett at £13 10s., and Bonnctt paid the la Did r<l vS P wife s 'have £1200 from her father's estate ?-I can't, tell you My wifo is not a creditor in my estate. I said that what she got was from her father s. estate, whatever Tt was. What my w.fe had m . tha>Pf&. . Cal :

cutt, of tho Loan and Mercantile, Ghnstchurch. What was tho consideration of the transfer of your interest in Searl and Lyons to your wifo?—l cannot say, because I cannot remember the terms. , Mr. Simpson asked you for a three years statement, and you gavo a partial statement? —Yes. Have you applied to Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lyons for permission to go through the books for tho purpose of'making this statement? —No. Why?—Becauso I knew from the action I had against Mr. Bennett that he had not the books, or would not produce them. Mr. Petherick: How many compromises have you had with your creditors beside the bankruptcy?— None. Nothing in tho nature of a compromise. —No. _ . The inquiry was adjourned until Monday at 2.15 p.m. '