THE ASSIGNED ESTATE OF M. McCREDIE, IRONMONGER.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5720, 30 July 1879, Page 3

THE ASSIGNED ESTATE OF M. McCREDIE, IRONMONGER.

TO THE EDITOE OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sib, —In reply to Mr. Arthur Biddell’s letter of correction, in your issue of this morning, I should be glad to know in what way his name was used at the meeting of my creditors which could call for any explanation or correction from him. I simply spoke of him as having taken the stock-books to the trustees for the purpose of their arriving at a valuation. No doubt he was acting under instructions as an employee of Mr. E. W. Mills, who was one of the trustees; as such, therefore, he was clearly not responsible. As, however, he has—voluntarily, no doubt—thought proper to give some explanation respecting the stock and stockbooks, I consider it only fair in justice to myself and my unsecured creditors to state that the checking of those books was not completed by me, and that the amount arrived at was neither more nor less than the figures of Mr. Biddell himself; not one of the corrections as mado by me having been taken into account in arriving at the total. Mr. Biddell states that the stock was taken at cost prices as given by my shopman, and in some cases by myself, but he forgets altogether that he with a large number of the employees from Mr. Mills' establishment were engaged in taking down stock upon loose sheets of paper, which were afterwards copied, either by himself or some of the employees of Mr. Mills. On coming to those parts of the stockbooks in which these sbeiits had been copied, I was not satisfied with the prices as stated. I therefore went through a certain portion of the stock, and found that gross errors had occurred. I. pointed these out to Mr. Biddell before he took the books away, and on our making a comparison with the sheets my corrections were found to be right He confessed he could not account for it, and would make enquiry as to how they had been copied off in such a manner. I also pointed out to him that there was a quantity of stock omitted, a portion of which I had noted in the books ; an item of stocks and dies (value about £SO) was, I believe, not noted. The amount received by way of sales from the time Mr. Mills took possession to the completion of stock-taking was also not taken into account. Now, sir, I was not aware until the meeting of creditors at which Mr. Mills valued the stock but that all these corrections had been taken into account, Mr. Biddell having informed me that the trustees were quite satisfied as to the value of the stock. I did, however, mention the matter to Mr. Macdonald (one of the trustees), who said that a private meeting would be held in a few days, when the question of valuation would be considered, and I would then have an opportunity of pointing out anything that was wrong. Again, Mr. Biddell states that the stock was costed at from 15 to 20 per cent, above present value, and some of it utterly useless. If this be true, it may in a large measure account for my having to assign my estate, and certainly would not reflect much credit on the house from which the principal portion was purchased. Mr. Biddell now accuses me of estimating the stock in my first balance-sheet at £7500, and in a few days after I state it to the creditors at £5090, and asks how I can account for the depreciation of £2500 in a few days. In the first place, the few days was three weeks, during which time the stock was taken ; he will therefore see, if he understands the meaning of what he says, and will deduct the actual from the estimated, the depreciation will be accounted for. I may also here add that the somewhat forced auction sale at my old premises the day previous to possession being taken by Mr. Mills lessened to some extent the estimated value. Referring now to Mr. Biddell’s concluding remarks I can only say that in commenting upon the action of myself (the small knot of creditors which he says are working with me I leave to speak for themselves) as being unjustifiable and not very creditable would be much more applicable if applied to himself. It is, I consider, a gross piece of impertinence on the part of Mr. Biddell, who is not a creditor, and is in no way affected by the action of my creditors, to pub-licly-criticise our action. If my conduct had not been creditable I don’t think it likely that I would have received the consideration at the hands of my creditors which I did.—l am, &c., M. McCebdie.

[lt this correspondence should be continued we hope those who take part in it will avoid any further personalities, otherwise we must decline to insert their letters.— Ed. N. Z. T.]