THAMES BOROUGH

Hokitika Guardian, 1 August 1932, Page 5

THAMES BOROUGH

IN BANKRUPTCY PUBLIC TRUST A BIG LOSER. (Per Press Association — Copyright.) WELLINGTON, July 30. In a written judgment in the Thames debenture holders petitions for the appointment of a Receiver, on the oral judgment in which he had already proem..iced, His Honour, Mr Justice Ostler, says: “It is unnecessary to givu a detaned history of the loans which have been raised, but it may be stated that in 1921, the unimproved value s of the rateable land in the Borough was £283,000, and the total debt of the Borough was about £40,000, or about £l4 to every £1(X) of unimproved value. To-day the rateable value of the unimproved land Ims. sunk to about £107,000, but the total amount of loans raised dry the Borough and secured on the rates payable in respect of the unimproved value is no less a sum

than £250,000, and, in addition, Thames Harbour Board has raised £60,000, secured by a Borough rate; so that there is a total debt of £2OO for every £IOO worth of unimproved value.” After referring to the steadily increasing amount of the loans and the steadily decreasing value of the security 1 offered for them, His Honour points out that since 1924 there have been no issues of loans taken up by tho public except a small loan of £576 by the A.M.P. Society, and one at £12,000 by A, and G. Price, Ltd., both in 1925. With these exceptions, 1 all the money borrowed by the Borough since 1924 has been lent by Government Departments, chiefly ; by the Public Trustee, who invested no less j than £130,000 out of the Common Fund !in Thames securities. It seems inevit- - able that the Common Fund will su‘I fer a. heavy loss in this investment. | The opinion held by His Honour was : that if a Receiver were appointed and subsequently the Governor-General in Council appointed a Commissioner, the latter appointment w T ould immediately render the Receiver powerless. He could take no step to enforce the payment of interest. ■ It wuld be futile to appoint a Receiver if his powers were liable to be destroyed immediately in the way. The petitions sought the appointment of a Receiver in the Thames Borough in respect of two loans, the street improvement loan of £70,350, and the sanitary works loan of £OB,OOO. The j Borough had made (default in payment of interest since October, 1931, its position being affected not only by the ; depression, but also by the practical cessation of goldmining in the district* and transfer of locomotive building activities from the factory of A. and G. (Price, Ltd.; to the new Government railwny workshops. The petitioners were Messrs J. Nand D. M. Fraser, Mrs tJ. A. Fraser and Dr. A- Newton, all residents in Australia. ' ' , The applications were opposed by the Thames Borough Council on the ground that by the Thames Borough' Commissioner Act, 1932, Parliament had made provision for a scheme whereby a commissioner would be appointed by the Governor-General to take charge of the management of the Borough’s affairs in consultation with an advisory committee of the council to recover the general and special