MEETING OF CREDITORS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2813, 12 February 1908, Page 37

MEETING OF CREDITORS.

RE J. J. MUNRO.

A HORSE-DEALER'S FAILURE. | An adjourned meeting of creditors in the esta+e of James Jackson Munro, of Gore, horse-deeler, was held in the Official Assignee's office on the 4th instant There wer-3 three creditors present. Mr Solomon appeared for Mr Allan Johnston (cf Dunediu) and Mr Burnard for Mr A- A. Thomson (of Outram). Mr T E. Roberts, deputy-iegistrar of the Supreme Court, was authorised by Mr C. C. Graham, official assignee, to act as his agent The Acting Official Assignee said the estate had been in the official assignee's hands since the Ist November. Munro was then adjudged bankrupt on the petition of Mr A.: lan Johnston. For some time he failed to file a schedule, for which reason the meeting was put off two or three times- j Mr Solomon said he wisheel to examine the bai-krupt on one or two points. j <• Bankrupt, examined, said he was m tieaty last year for the piuchase of a hotel a*. Ixae's Junction also foi a hotel at Souta JJunedrn. Ho applied to Mr Johnston to assist him to get into the hotel at Rae's Junction. He was also negotiating foi a hotel at Fitzroy. South Dunedin. All transactions in connection with the hotel at Fitzloy were cone uded, except, the payment of the jnoney — £625. Co enable him to complete that transaction Johnston had agieed to lend him £150, and he was to get (urn Mr Harrison, manager O'l the Farmeis' Cooperative Company, another £150- Ihe brewei was to give £300, and witness was to give a promissory note for the remaining j X'2s Johnston and Hanisci held secuuty ever a stone house at Waver'ey, plso a second nicilgage over the hotel. Ihe biewer had the first mortgage- At that time Harrison and Johnston had his piopeity in his name, they were lesponsible for a sum of £500 due to the Bank of Austialasia theieon The v purchase of the property at Fitzroy went off. He received £100 as pait payment of the j hotel. He did not get the other £50 from I Johnston Johnston was to get security over | the hotel to secuie the repayment oi the money i Mi Solomon ■ You discounted Johnston's bill, div you not.' — Yes. ! You knew you were to get it discounted for the purpose of coinp.eting the hotel . pxuehas-e o—Yes0 — Yes I Why did you discount it when you knew the hotel transaction was off' — When the bill was discounted I did not think the hotel business was off. j If the hotel business went off. by what right did you keep Johnston's £100 without ' security ovei the hotel which was to be given to you for that purpose 9 — Because Mr I Johnston humbugged me, and my wife and family had to remain for 10 or 11 weeks m ! lodguigs in Dunedin, when he knew we weie penniless and depending on. this transaction ' going thioughBut the money was given to you to complete the purchase of a hotel '—Yes, but j it was no good to me without the ether £.30. And what" right had you to put into your ' pocket the £100 which was to be put into the . purchase of a hotel? — Where was I to put it? j Why not give it back ' — Because pait was spent in boaid and lodging You spent the money, and you gave no security foi it "' — Yes. How do 3'ou justify that 9 — Because the man broke his promise. He did not cany out his promise to give me X'lso, and I had to live somehow or other. | Why did you live on his money 9 — He led me on for 10 or 11 weeks with his promises until a deposit was paid on the hotel, and then when Hairison went to your office to complete the arrangements Johnston said " 2\n." I Under those circumstances you considered you Were justified ia taking his money and u=ing it for your own purposes 9—l9 — I do not consider I was altogether justified, but how was a man to live and get along? You had no right to take another man's m-jney to live on? — Yes, when he had kept me going so long with his promises. Why did the purchase go off in the end? — Because Johnston would not come forward with the other £50. Didn't Harrison withdraw from the transaction 9 — No, he was ready to complete the puichase, and went to your office on two I occasions to do so. | When the transaction was off, didn't ycu ' know you had no right to the money? — I won't say th»t. Don't shuffle with me. — I am not shuffling. Didn't you know that the bill was given to you for the puipose of completing the purchase of the hotel property? — Yes. Then if the transaction was off before you discounted his bill, why did you discount it? — That is a question a man cannot answer, but I had been put to expense for 10 cut 11 weeks on his promises. Further examined, bankrupt said he pretty well lived on Johnston's money. He spent it on the keeping of his family. Ho did not ask Johnston's permission. He thought he spoke to Johnston about the matter. Ho gays Johnston back £25 out of the £100 a j few days after the transaction was off. He kept the remainder for the support of hia j family. He was now grooming horeesi — Genera-1 Pet an 3 Mbndjik, two entires belong- I ing to Mr Harrison. Witness bought General Pet in the first place from John Chalmers, of Milton, but could not pay for him. That was about a- fortnight after the hotel transaction went off. He bid 230gs for the hois*. >

It may have b-ten two or three days after tho . hotel transaction that he bought the horse. He paid £20 down. He got the J620 from his wife It was her own money — part of hei income. It was not part of Johnston's money. Although he had to keep Johnston'3 money for the support of his family, his wife had a private income. The hor=e was bought in his wife's name. He got his wife's money so that he could keep the horee apart froni Johnston's affairs. His wife got money, from Melbourne. She leceived a. regular income. The agreement with Chalrnsrs was in his wife's name. The balance of the money for the horse was to be paid over at a certain date. He was going "to get the balance from the sal© of a shipment of horses in Melbourne. He had entered into an arrangement with Harrison to tnke horses to Mel} bourne, and he was to get a portion of tha profits, which he intened to give to Chalmers. The horse transaction in Melbourne was ft rank failure. Witness was to get half the profits, after all expen.=es had been paid and after Harrison had taken a certain amount. Ten horses were taken over. When he cazne back he asked Harrison for the balance of the money necessary to buy General Pet, but Harrison would not give it. It was them agreed that Harrison should buy the horse, witness to look after it. His wife got her £20 back. Harrison gave nis cheque for 230gs, and witness got the deposit of £20 from Cha'mers The fees for the services of the horse were paid to Harrison "Witness had been bankrupt several times Mr Johnston, was witness's brother-in-law. Mr Solomon • You vere bankrupt in Christchurch some time ago' — Yes. And you are not discharged in that ease 9—9 — I do not know Don't you know you are not 'discharged 9—9 — I do not know. Will ycu swear that you are not? — ICo, I won't. Bankrupt added that he would like to have Johnston's claim looked into. Johnston claimed £295, and he disputed £164 of the amount Some of the accounts, ha thought, would be found to be incorrect. The meeting then adjourned sine die.