MEETING OF CREDITORS IN MAJOR MARTIN’S ESTATE.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 150, 27 August 1880, Page 3

MEETING OF CREDITORS IN MAJOR MARTIN’S ESTATE.

Mr Griffiths attended a meeting in order to be examined by the Trustee as to the nature of his transactions with Major Martin, under clause IG7 of the Debtor’s and C’retoi’s Act.

Mr Griffiths said he attended here at great personal inconvenience, and protested against being called upon at a few hours’ notice. He had remonstrated with Mr Stenhouse, the Trustee, who had said lie would arrange for Friday, but Mr Girling objected. Mr Girling said this was correct as he wished the matter to be got through as soon as possible. Mr McNab (for the creditors) asked to be allowed to conduct the examination for the Trustee.

It was agreed that the questions should be put through Mr McNab. C. J. W. Griffiths being sworn, stated:— I have had dealings with the debtor. They commenced on the Bth November last. I can give a list of my debits against the debtor in order of date from that day until now. I can give a similar list of credits. The document produced marked A contains that information. It is taken from the ledger. It is an answer to the last two questions. There are some items marked in red ink, which are extracted from other books of mine besides the ledger. They refer to bills. They are taken from my diary, billbooks, and cheque books. Mr letter-book discloses letters 1 have sent to the debtor. I have in my possession letters written by the debtor to me. I produce seven letters, and a statement of assets and liabilities given to me by the debtor on the 14th July last. It sets forth his financial position and his probable expenditure to 31st December next. In the statement of assets and liabilities are the words, “ and bill of sale covering about £200.” These words were in the statement when given to me. They are in the same writing apparently. The bill of sale was given on the 27th May last by the debtor. He had consulted me about his affairs prior to that date, about the 27th April. I don’t think I consulted Mr Rogers on his account. My solicitor and myself had consultations about Martin. The statement produced marked A is in my handwriting. In the statement arc these words, “ Interview with Mr Rogers re legal position of bill of sale, &c.,” and there is a debit of 10s Gd on the opposite side. I decline to say what the consultation was. In my opinion the trustee has no power to ask the question. The charge was made for several hours’ work done for Martin. I made a charge for making out a list of assets and liabilities. I cannot find it. I have looked for it. Martin may have it, but his liabilities as then represented were considerably less than according to the statement made by him to me on the 14th July, where he makes them out to be LIG9. From the list 1 then made out I was satisfied that Martin was in a perfectly solvent position. The amount of assets on May 17th I don’t remember. His assets were represented to me as consisting of his furniture, his horse, trap, harness, &c,, also his policy of insurance, pension, &c M I don’t think T handed the statement to Mr Rogers. I have no copy, of the statement. I dech'ne to answer if I have seized under the bill of sale which I held, the property of the debtor. You know very well I have ; but I decline to answer any questions that does not apply to the property of the debtor. After his signing it the property mentioned in the bill of sale was mine. As to whether or not prior to the bankruptcy the goods mentioned in the bill of sale were the debtor’s I refer you to my last answer. I am not going to assist you to bring an action against me on the bill of sale. The bill was given about May 27th by the debtor. It was given in order to secure money due and to become due, to coverpast, present, and future advances. I decline to produce my ledger to verify the account A. That account is a correct copy from my ledger of Martin’s account in so far as the writing in black ink is concerned. I decline to produce my ledger because I consider such a request from the trustee inquisitorial and illegal. I decline to produce my butts of cheque's, &c., for the same rea-. son. I will allow copies to be taken by the trustee’s solicitor of Martin’s letters to me, but not of the letters from me to Martin, from the letter book. I will furnish copies of them at the usual rate per folio if on consideration I think your request a proper one. Thinkiug your request an improper one I now decline to accede to itandfurther I -think the proper place to produce 1 them will be in whatever Court the much talked of action against me may be brought when the case is heard. 1 have in my possession orders of the debtor payable to myself, on his salaryfrom the Education Board and on his pension. I produce an order in my favor on the Collector

of Customs for £39 in respect of the Major s pension for the quarter ending September 30th. If my solicitor so advises me, I will hand it over for the benefit of the estate. There are two orders on the Education Board for £lO each. I believe there was an order for £lO presented to my clerk, Mr ■Seaife. by Mr W. Cook, storekeeper, on the Awatere Road Board for draughting done by Major Martin. Payment was refused on the ground that the Board had sat and there was nothing due. Ido not sec that these orders are of much good to me or the estate. In the statement marked A are two items paid to Carter, making up £22. The actual date of those debits was, I think, at the time the bill of sale was being arranged for, about the 25th May. Martin was to have signed it on the 24th May. Carter was not paid before the 25th May. 'I he bill of sale was executed on the 27th May, ami the payment to Carter was the cause of its being given. I don’t think Carter’s summons was ever served on Major Martin. He wrote to me begging and praying me to settle the matter for him. He wrote me a letter (produced) on the 9th of May to that effect. The bill I gave to Carter has not yet come to maturity. The reason why it appears in the statement that Carter was not paid until the 27th May, when he was paid May 25, may have been because of was a delay in putting it into the daybook, or) it may have been incorrectly copied, the item, B.N Z. LlO, refers to a loan I made to Martin but I consider the question irrevelant. The item, " Paid Bank (to obtain LS) L 30,” arose from my knowing Martin had only LS in the Bank and I paid in the difference. This was paid on July oth I believe. How I came to know what Martin had in the Bank I consider an irrevalent question, hut as it might be supposed I obtained the information from?the Bank I beg to state that such was not the case, but I decline to answer where I got it from. I have authority in writing from Martin to pay Fell and Co. L 44 0s lOd on July 22nd. On that day Martin wrote enclosing a letter from Fell of 13th July, on which date the debt due was L4l Ss Gd, threatening leirnl proceedings. On the 22nd July, at Martin’s request I got from Fell a copy of his account which he (Martin) asked me to pay and gave me an order. On the 23rd he wrote asking if I had settled with Fell so that he might get more goods. (Letter produced.) On the 27th July Martin gave me a promissory note for the amount with interest added (promissory note produced for L4G 4s lOd.) I had paid Fell Bros, on the 22nd, I decline to answer whether there was any particular reason for my paying Messrs Fell in preference io others. The cart and harness referred to in the statement were my goods. I decline to answer any questions respecting goods not the property of the debtor. I debited the debtor with 17s for the sale of these goods. They were sent to me for sale as an auctioneer anti the proceeds were to go to his credit as against money owing. After being put up twice and the reserve not being reached, a charge was made for advertising, &c. I decline to answer further questions about the goods. The consideration forthebiil of L 57 18s 5d was a balance due to me on July 17th as shown in my account marked A. I insured property in the debtor’s house for LISO. There were items in the bill of sale which I did not seize. The insurance was in my name. The insurance included all the furniture of the debtor, including a piano. It also included furniture at Kaituna. The evidence was read over, and Mr Griffiths said he had no objection to make a personal explanation to Mr McNab on' all matters but he declined to have his books and letter book brought here and overhauled by the trustee and the creditors. By Mr Lawrence I decline to produce my hooks as a matter of right. I will allow the trustee to mark the papers produced for identification, hut I decline to let them get out of my possession. Mr McNab said as Mr Griffiths positively declined to produce his books as a matter of right, it would be a question for the Judge to decide whether he was justified or not in so refusing. This concluded the enquiry which lasted the greater part of the day. [During the progress of the examination several complimentary passages occurred between Mr Griffiths and Mr P. Lawrence. Mr Paul Douslin having said something to Mr Giiffiths, Mr Lawrence said Mr Douslin had no business to speak and called upon the trustee to keep order. Mr Griffiths said Mr Douslin had as much right to speak as Mr Lawrence, who was always interrupting, and he (Mr G.) wished the trustee would tell Mr Lawrence or Mr Magnus, or whatever his name was, to hold his tongue. Mr Lawrence retorted by saying he’d never stolen a coat or had one dyed, but the place would soon be as hot as when it was on fire, and turning to Mr Griffiths called him a “ pig,” and that he (Lawrence) would punch his head. The trustee called Mr Lawrence to order on this and other occasions, and Mr McNab also requested him not to interrupt the proceedings by irrevalent remarks.]