In Bankruptcy.

Manawatu Herald, 9 January 1904, Page 3

In Bankruptcy.

MEETING OP CREDITORS.

A meeting of creditors in the estate of R. T. Betty, bootmaker, Foxton, was held in the office of the D.0.A., Mr G. J. Scott, who presided.

The creditors present were Messrs J. A. Perreau, R. Perreau, 0. Austin, Law, P. Hennessy, and C. Easton. Mr R. Moore, solicitor of Foxton, appeared on behalf of the bankrupt; Mr Hankins for Messrs R. and J. A. Perreau; and Mr Cooper for the Gilbert Machinery Co., Ltd.

The statement of accounts was read as previously published, with an additional claim against the estate of £650 from R. Perreau ; and £looirom J. A. Perreau; also other minor claims, Thera were two accounts in connection with the bankruptcy; one being private, and the other in connection with the partnership in a flaxrnill near Shannon.

The debtor being sworn stated: — I commenced business in Foxton about seven years ago. I did not take up any other business until about August, 1903. During the previous month Mr W. Loveday, draper, who was in partnership with E. Perreau, of Foxton, in a flaxmilling concern which had been started by them about May, 1903, asked me to lend him £2OO, he agreeing in consideration to give me a half of his share in the concern. Loveday and Perreau were partners in equal shares. I lent the money, ha (Loveday) agreeing to secure me by mortgage on his life policy and Second mortgage on his house. Ido not know what Loveday did with the money except that part of it was paid to meet bills due by him in connection with his drapery business. Mr P. Perreau came into the shop some time about the beginning of August and offered to sell me a share in the mill and said it was a real good thing, but he wanted to get out of it to mill with hia brother in Auckland, where he had flax land of his own. He wanted £7OO for his Share, The amount he had paid into the concern himself was £2OO. I considered the matter for a few days. I said £7OO was too much and that £SOO would be sufficient. A provisional agreement to buy Mr Perreau’s share was drawn up and feigned by me. On September sth |lr Loveday committed suicide. As he had kept the books and did all the managing I knew nothing after his death about the position of affairs. I had been led into partnership by misrepresentations, and decided not to further complete the arrangements. Several of the mill hands issued summonses against me, but I refused to pay on the ground that the partnership should be liable, and I had no partneiship assets. However, judgment went against me and execution issued against my stock-in-trade. I paid the judgment in order to save the goods. Altogether I paid about £7OO out of my private estate into the mill and for partnership claims. All I received out of the concern was £7O 19s 9d for fibre consigned to Messrs A. Patterson and Co., Wellington. A number of the creditors declined to recognise me as taking over Perreau’s liabilities and continued to hold Loveday and Perreau liable. Mr J. A. Perreau, to whom a bill for £SO was endorsed, baa issued a writ for the recovery of the amount. I have obtained leave to defend the claim. The cases are fixed for hearing at Palmerston on 11th February. Among the assets there was a policy on the life of W. Loveday for £2OO —this was at present in the hands of Mr Hankins. The Gilbert Machinery i ''ompany seised the mill under a bill of sale, as a certain bill due, had not been met. ‘ Mr Betty gave no authority for the seizure and did not know the mill had been seized until he saw it mentionad in the paper that Mr Hamer had bought it. There were certain chattels over which the Gilbert Company had no right. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins, bankrupt said no one had made any enquiries as to the purchase of the mill before the Gilbert Company seized it. Debtor was cross-examined at length by Mr Hankins and other creditors. On the motion of J. A. Perreau, seconded by R. Perreau, it was proposed to have the debtor publicly examined, but as no other credit rs would assent to this, the D.O.A stated that aa the affairs of the estate were so mixed up it could not be satisfactorily wound up without a public examination when the merits and demerits of the ca.ies in dispute could be sifted in the Supreme Court, he therefore decided that a public examination would be arranged. --M. Times.