SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1778, 17 June 1913, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

TWO BANKRUPTS EXAMINED. CAPITAL ONLY £30. DEBTS OF £600 INCURRED. A public examination under the Bankruptcy Aot took place in the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honour the Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout). The examination related to the failure of Riddler and Firth, who had been carrying on business in the Wellington district as building contractors. Mr. H. E. Evans appeared for the Official Assignee (Mr. A. Simpson), and Mr. T. M. Wilford for Riddler. Tho other partner, Firth, was not represented by counsel. At the request of Mr. Evans, tho judge directed the exclusion of one bankrupt while the other was being examined. Samuel Richard Riddler was called firlt. He stated that ho resided with his father at Petone, and, prior to the partnership, had known Firth for about four years. He had had come experience of the contracting business, a 9 he had worked in tho employment of Riddler and ' Burridge, a combination which comprised his father and a Mr. Burridge. They built houses together, but were not in partnership. So far as he knew, the combination had no dealings with Briscoe and Co., but they had dealings with Hart Udy and with Bonthome and Wilson. They had never notified these firms that Riddler and Burridge meant witness and not his father. His Honour: What is the father ? Mr. Wilford: He's just an old settler, your Honour, with a bit of. property, on which they built. Witness went on to say that the partnership between himself and Firth had been entered into «t the suggestion of his father, after Riddler and Burridge had finished their building. Mr. Evans: What capital did you have to begin with? • Witness: I had about .£3O. Mr. Evans: Did Firth have any? Witness: No, he had none. In answer to further questions, witness Btated that the £30 had been paid into his father's account, and his father advanced money at times. His father had made no charge for accommodating him, and had advanced money until the end of June, 11)11. He then ceased to do so, in consequence of a quarrel with Firth jn regard to a cheque. Some money was then due to his father, but he did not know how much. The book produced had been written up by his brother's clerk, and another book had been written up by his brother-in-law, Baxter. These books had first been written up when the firm began ito get into trouble, and they had been 'written up from statements which witness had obtained from Firth. Previous to this, witness had had no knowledge of the condition of the business, as Firth had said that they were "doing all right." The material from which the books wero written was in the possession of witness, and he was prepared to hind over that material to tho Official Assignee. Firth used to draw .£3 a week from tho business, but afterwards came down to £2 10s. per week. Ho (witness) at first drow £'2 10s. for a few weeks, but subsequently drew only £2 per week. Firth had the invoices enumerating the goods supplied for jobs carried on by the firm, but communications regarding the business were generally sent to witness, who passed them on to Firth. His Honour remarked that there oppeared to b© no st«at©in6nt of assets and liabilities filed. What was the'final condition of affairs? _ Mr. Evans explained that the deficiency would amount to about .£OOO. In regard to advances tby Riddler and Burridge, witness stated'that there was generally a request from Firth for a cheque lo pay some account, and witness wonld then apply to his father or to Burridge. At March, 1912, .£l3O was owing to Riddler, sen., and .£l6O to Burridge. Mr. Wilford hero explained that Burridge had advanced sunis from time to time as they were required, and. crsxlxts were paid into his account, which, however, was never in credit until towards the end. There had then been about £300 owing, and .£3OO came in from a contract, placing him in credit. Counsel thought that it was that sum that orcditors wero Witness <leclarcd that his'father had made several requests for his .£l3O, but had never threatened proceedings. Iho amount was paid about July, 1912, shortly before the firm ceased operations, llie last contract was Love's job at Hataitai. Firth only worked about three days a week on that job. During other days he was citJier "on the wine" or doing business in town. At times he was incapable of looking after the work, but he received the progress payments from I/ove s contract. To Mr. Wilford: Burridge was a very old friend of witness's family,, and was his father's one confidential friend. Ho (Burridge) was in quite a substantial position as manager of tho Gear Company's fellmongery at Petone. Witness was just an ordinary working carpenter, and had devoted himself steadily to work. He had trusted Firth implicitly, and, when Firth had applied to Burridge for cheques, witness had never inquired as to what the cheques were for. Witness had •no assets at all. During tho last few weeks of Love's contract, he had received no wages. Henry Firth, residing at Reuben Avenue, Brooklyn, stated that he was ft building contractor and had entered into partnership with Riddler, jun., in 1909. Previous to that ho had worked for Riddler and Burridge nt Petone. Regarding the new partnership and the payments by Riddler, sen., and Burridge, the witness corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. The accounts had been kept by witness (Firth) in exercise-books, and he had made out loose leaves and given them to Riddler sq that proper books could bo made out. Ho had then destroyed the exorcise-books because he "did not think they were fit toNgo before a meeting of creditors," \ His Honour: You mean you dldn t think they were well enough written? Witness replied in the affirmative. Continuing, ho said that (assuming that the books were mado up from the figures he had supplied) if the books showed that tho firm owed .£SOO to the merchants at the commencement of March, 1912, that would bo correct. If the books further showed that after the commencement of Jlarch, 1912, they received J3490 from contracts other than Lovo s contract that would also be correct. Tho position was that prior to taking Love s contract thoy could have almost paid all creditors other than Riddler, sen., and Burridge. After completing that contract, they owed Riddler and Burridge nothing, and owed other firms .£6OO with no assets to pay them. , . , Mr. Evans: Can you explain why you paid Riddler and Burridgs and' not the merchants? Witness: Well, thev had the handling of the money, and they took it. Mr. Evans: Didn't you know that the proper thing would have been to pay some of that money to the merchants instead of letting it pass to Burridge? Witness replied that ho thought Mr. Burridge would make same payments. Ho had been in the habit of giving Burridge instructions as to what payments should be made. . , . ~ , , On tho question of his drinking habits, the witness said a lot had been made out of that, and he did not want to shirk the questions. He had not, however, been drinking heavily, but was run down at the time. His Honour: Well, if you were not in. good health, alcohol was the very worst thing you could take. In the course of further evidence, Firth stated that he had not been absent from work through drink. He did not know that ho was in a position which required that he should indulgo in manual labour all tho time. He was a married man with five children. There had been a prohibition order against him at Petone. This closed the examination, subject to Riddler producing the material from sfliioh tho books were written uj.

The Bankruptcy sittings were adjourned until August 14 at 10.30 a.m.

BARRETT'S HOTEL. ACCOUNTS TO BE TAKEN. Ia the Supremo Court yesterday morning, tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard on application to have accounts taken in connection with financial transactions relative to Barrett's Hotel. Tho plaintiff in the action was Alfred Slaurice Lewis, aerated water manufacturer, of Wellington, and tlie defendants wore Hamilton Gilmer, merchant, of Wellington, and Allan Maguire, contractor, ofWellington. Mr. (J. B. Morison, K.C., with Mr. Douglas Jackson, appeared for Lewis, while Mr. A.. W. Blair appeared for Gilmei and Maguiro. In the statement of claim it was set out that Charles Henry Williams, a former licensee of Barrett's Hotel, was indebted to Lewis in the sum of iB2 ss. _9d. In consideration of a payment of ,£750 by Lewis, it was agreed that'Gilmer and Maguire, who held a mortgage over certain of the property, should give him (Lewis) a share in tho securities they held from Williams, tho arrangement being that Gilmer and Maguire should receive all moneys ia trust for themselves and the plaintiff (Lewis). Williams subsequently became insolvent, and assigned his estate for the benefit of his creditors. On the expiry of the lease of the hotel, Gilmer and Maguire procured a further lease, and dealt with such lease as i>art ol the securities. They granted to Staples and Co., Ltd., Wellington, the right to supply all the colonial beer and stout consumed on the premises. Since then there had been two or three changes in the occupation of the hotel, find Lewis now asked that accounts ba taken principally ill connection with the period during which the hotel was ini the occupation of one Connor. In defence, Gilmer and Maguiro said that they had supplied or agreed to supply to Lewis all that ho was entitled to m the way of accounts. The case was partly opened yesterday, when at his Honour's suggestion the matter was referred to. the Registrar for taking accounts, both sides agreeing to an order in terms proposed by his Honour.