COMMERCIAL

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4533, 28 February 1923, Page 2

COMMERCIAL

MEAT PRODUCERS’ BOARD. The New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board advises that the following prices are being offered :— Auckland.—Wethers : 641 b and under 6d, 65 to 721 b 5%d ; prime woolly lambs : 421 b and under 9d, 431 b and over B%d ; second quality lambs Poverty Bay.—Wethers : 641 b and under 6d. Prime woolly lambs : 421 b and under 3%d, 431 b and over B%d. Second quality lambs B%d. Hawke's Bay.—Wethers : 641 b and under 6%d, 65 to 721 b 6d. Ewes. 6411 i and under sd, 65 to 721 b 4i%d. Prime woolly lambs,: 421 b and under 9i/ 2 d, 431 b and over 9d. Second quality lambs 9d. Wanganui.—Wethers : 641 b and under 6%d 65 to 721 b 6d. Ewes : 601 b and under sd, 611 b and over 4%d. Prime woolly lambs : 421 b and under 9%d. Prime ox beef: 22s 6d per 1001 b. Second quality ox beef: 20s per 1001 b. Cow beef: 18s per 1001 b. Heifer beef: 21s per 1001 b. Canterbury.—Prime woolly lambs : 421 b and under 10%d. At last Addington sale the prices offered by the head for matton and beef were still above those at present offered by the lb for export.

PERSONAL STATEMENT. The 'bankrupt’s personal statement, was as follows: Some time in June, 1919,. I purchased a farm consisting of 65 acres 1 rood 9 perches from Mrs A. E. Robinson, wife of A. R. Robinson, at £56 per acre, for which I paid £1025 down, made up as follows: House property ,to the value of £625 (situated in Christchurch), which property was sold and was held by the occupier under an agreement for sale and purchase, the balance of the purchase money* which was £625, bearing interest at 6 per cent, and £40(1 in cash. The whole of the purchase money- belonged to my wife, and I took over two motgages—the first mortgage being owned by M. R. Morrison for £1328 at 5 per cent., and a second by T. C. Bayliss for £1322 at 6 per cent. Mandeno Jackson’s agent asked me how much I could finance up to, and I said about £1025. Mr Robinson, who acted as agent for Mrs Robinson, presented his wife’s equity to be £1025, and took me to his solicitors, Miller and Son, to draw up the agreement. I also bought from Rohinson 20 cows and 10 heifers and 1 bull for £449. The cattle agreement specified that the cattle were free of interest for one year. I got. possession on July 1, 1919, but owing to unforeseen circumstances was unable to take possession until .about July 25. One heifer died before I' took possession, but Robinson promised to replace it (which he never did), and of the 20 cows four were empty. He promised to replace all empty cows, and took two away and brought one back. The cows were poor and inferior o.wing to being badly milked by machines, and yielded only 36001 b of butter-fat for the season. I became suspicious about Mrs Robinson’s equity, and in December I wrote to Mr Clendon, who collects Mr Morrison’s interest, and asked the extent of the mortgage, and also wrote to Mr Bayliss in the same month, and on adding the two together I found that Mrs Robinson had received £72 over and above her equity, and Miller and Son, who acted for both parties, neglected to inform me of the fact. In fact, Miller never read out the extent of the mortgages ; and there was also £4 2s 2d interest on the £625 from May 22, 1919, until July 1, 1919, about which nothing was said. paid the first quarter’s interest, part of which was owing by him. As Miller failed to adjust interest until the following year, and I have never received, the above-mentioned £4 2s 2d yet., although I have sent in accounts for it, the rates were not adjusted. Now, had I had'that £76 2s 2d I would have built piggeries and fowl houses, and at the end of the season 1919-20 bacon pigs were realising Is per lb and I could have made quite £3OO out of pigs alone. There was also insufficient water on the place, and I had to go to the expense of putting down a well. Robinson put down an artesian which only flowed on the change of the weather. > l ! asked him for the expenses of putting down the well, but he refused t.o give, it to me. Last season I approached Mr Bayliss for a reduction, as I could see that it was impossible for me to carry on, but lie would not grant me one as Robinson, who had the place only about eleven months, made £lO per acre out of it. I also had- to buy nearly a new herd of cows, as there were only about seven cows and half the heifers any good. Mrs Smithson had some money left, her, with which she paid for the cows on November 1, 1920. The cattle would never have paid for themselves. She holds a registered bill-of-sale over them to the extent of £725. The property was also infested with the neighbours’ pigs for the past two seasons I was here, and when driven to desperation I shot three belonging to one neihgbour. I was taken into court, and it cost me about £6O to try and protect my rights. I know there is a case of negligence against Miller and Son, but it is too expensive for poor struggling people to take a case to the Supreme Court. I attribute my present position to misrepresentation of equity; misrepresentation of carrying capacity of farm, as Mr Robinson informed me that it would carry 40 cows, whereas it will carry only 25 cows to do them well ; misrepresentation of water; and to an inferior herd of cows, which I consider were not worth more than £250 for the herd. I may also add that T have never had a holiday since I came on the place, and Mrs Smithson and I have worked 14 hours a day during the busy season. And we never went to a picture show or had a day’s pleasure since

coming on the place. Nothing was said by Miller and Son about tlje £72 which Robinson received over the equity until the following year, when I went to Miller and Son to adjust the cattle bill. BANKRUPT EXAMINED. On the motion of Mr Garland, seconded by Mr Maxwell, it was decided to examine the bankrupt. To Mr Garland : Bankrupt remembered being sued in March for an account due to Miller and Son. He then raised all the arguments given in the statement, but judgment was given against him. He "did not get a good hearing from the Magistrate.’’ He had received a letter last, month from Miller and Son. but did not pay much attention to it. Bankrupt received a judgment summons, and the 7s conduct money was included in his.statement pf assets. He thought he gave a bill-of-sale to his wife before the summons was received. He had no reason why he should not have given the bill-of-sale before. Mr Garland : Is it not a fact that you gave the bill-of-sale the day after you got my summons ? Bankrupt: No. it was before. Everything led up to it. Mr Garland : Is it not a fact thal you gave your wife this bill-pf-sale to secure your wife over all creditors? Bankrupt: “Well, supposing I did : there would be no harm in that. I could see the thing would not pay, and I was going to secure her for the money she had paid.” His wife paid the costs.

Bankrupt, further examined, said he took action against Mr Robinson, on the lines indicated in, his statement, and was non-suited. TRADESMEN’S DEBTS. The tradesmen’s debts were nearly all contracted within the last twelve months. During that time he had had no income. He could not say what he had received during the last twelve months. He had kept no books. Bankrupt could not say, within £5O, what the Dairy Co. had paid him. He had received no milk cheques himself. and had been entirely dependent on the milk cheques. Mr Garland: It appears quite clear that when you contracted these debts during the last 12 months you had no prospect of pacing them. Bankrupt: No, not unless things altered. THE MILK CHEQUESMr Garland : Your wife had all the benefits, and you contracted the liabilities in your own name. Bankrupt: No, pot all of them. He made the milk cheques over to his wife to protect her interests. Mr Garland: If the assignee wan’s you to give up the farm at once, will you do so ? Bankrupt: No, not until a certain court case comes on. Mr Garland : If the assignee sends a man what will you do ? Bankrupt: Stop on it. Mr Garland: Is it not a fact that you said you would shoot a man if he came ? Bankrupt: No. Who’s been telling you that. In answer to further questions bankrupt said he gave a bill-of-sale to his wife while the cattle were hers. He had paid some debts, but did not have a. list of them. The money his wife had received in milk cheques had gone in paying household expenses and debts. He could not remember the name of any account paid. He had' paid no interest or rates. ‘ K Mr Garland : How much has your wife got in the bank ? Bankrupt: I don’t know. I never inquire into that. He had spent, about £3OO in improvements —two wells, windmill, yards, stumping, etc. He still intended to stay on if, he got a reasonable reduction. To Mr Porritt: The property was not worth more than the mortgages—say, £4l an acre. To Mr Brenan : Bankrupt would ne satisfied to remain on the place if It was reduced by £ll an acre. He had paid £26 an acre too much. Mr Brenan: In order to try and get a reduction \you filed ? I ' Bankrupt: Yes, that is one reason. Mr Brenan: Have you made all the available assets over tp your wife ? Bankrupt.; Yes; it had to be cleared up somehow. QUESTION OF FAIRNESS. Mr Brenan: Do you think that is fair to the small men—the butcher, the”baker, and others? Bankrupt: They don’t always lose the money because a, man goes bankrupt. He considered his action w’as fair in making the assets over tp his wife. He had quenched his thirst with the 7s conduct money.

Mr Garland: You’ll have to pay it, if it’s stolen, or go to gaol. Bankrupt: It’s in the statement. When Miller and Son’s case against him was heard the Magistrate had said his defence was a vexatious one. CREDITORS DISSATISFIED. Mr Maxwell said Mr Smithson had incurred liabilities while he had no possible chance of paying. The statement was most unsatisfactory. He moved, “That this meeting of creditors recommend the Official Assignee immediately to transfer the property to A. R. Robinson, or his nominee,.in consideration of the latter taking over all the liabilities to date on the property, consisting of two mortgages, arrears of interest, and rates.” The motion was seconded by Mr Garland and carried unanimously. ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT. Mr Garland moved, and Mr Maxwell seconded, “That this meeting of creditors emphatically condemns the bankrupt’s conduct and considers that the bankrupt, has merely exploited his creditors; and that, while the bankrupt has incurred liabilities his wife has received all the income frpm the property, this meeting is of opinion that the bankrupt has infringed against the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, under seven sub-sections of Section 138, and recommends the Official Assignee to lay the factsi of the case before the Crown solicitor with a view to prosecuting the bankrupt.” The motion was carried unanimous-.