BUNEDIN EX-RABBI'S AFFAIRS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2895, 8 September 1909, Page 37

BUNEDIN EX-RABBI'S AFFAIRS.

I UNFORTUNATE SPECULATIONS* I BANKRUPTCY EXAMINATION. I At the Yarmouth Bankruptcy Court in |" July the public examination was heard of f Louis Julius Harrison, rag a>nd metal meri chant, Regent road, Yarmouth, and Crown 5f street, Ipswich, and Belie Marsh road, I Gorleston. Liabilities, £1134- 2s 2d; de- \ ' ficdency, £1121 2s 2d. Mr Geoffrey Bracey \- appeared for debtor. i Debtor eaid he arrived in London from c Poland in 1881, and assumed the name of i Harrison, which was the English equivalent f cf his Polish name. He remained in Lons don unlft 1883, being principally engaged % in teaching, and then went to Norwich, where his brother, Harris Lurie, joined ? him later. They commenced 1 business In F Ber street as tobacconists with J65 capital. I On July 13, 1887, he obtained an adminisy tration order with scheduled debts of £45 t- 19s 9d, but no dividend: and -not eve,n the ': court fees were paid. The same year his partner obtained a similar order, and had L since left the district. Debtor continued ? - the business fear some time, and was then ; ; .appointed Rabbi of Norwich Synagogue, I -with a salary of £65, and teaching brought 1-: his pay up . to £150 a year. In 1893 he l~ emigrated to Dunedin, New Zealand, where t ik& was appointed Rabbi, a position worth I £500- a year; but Buffering from a eonl gested throat, he returned to London in r July, 1897, and consulted a specialist. He also tried to raise money for a New Zea- -. land frozen meat company, but was unsuccessful, and the company went into liqui- \ dation A call was made upon him for shares, and he had no money to meet it. On landing in London he had £40. In September, 1897, he resigned his position T. as Rabbi, and in December of that " ' year started a commission business at r Goring street, Houneditoh, a 6 the Anglo- ! TJolonial Trading Company, which lasted for & year and then came to the g-rouftd. = He was served with a writ for £894- by a '~~ firm cf meat shippers, who obtained judgr ment and filed a petition against him. '- They could not, however, find him to • . serve the notice, but in the following March * debtor filed a statement, showing £2000 '■ liabilities and assets of nearly £3000, but none of these were recoverable, and nothing i- was paid as dividend The liabilities were ; largely in respect of guarantees given for .. the Kew Zealand Company. In 1900 he '] applied for hi* discharge, which was granted W subject to two yearg' suspension, and he be- |, came discharged in May, 1902. Then he W "went to Yarmouth, and entered the employ \- of hi 3 brother, S. H. Harrison, who carried X on a furniture business, which later became W the Eastern Furnishing Company, with B debtor as managing director. He_ had no IL capital to put into the company, which went g£ ~ into voluntary liquidation in 1903. and fe nothing was paid to the unseoured creditors. §p After that he commenced trading a* a rag p" ' and metal merchant at Yarmouth with If 30s -lent him by a friend. Be had no & premises for 12 months, and linen hired t some in Row 20, in Row 136, and in f— —Octobeir, 1905, removed to Bull lane, Gorleston, and later etill to Bell's Marsh £. road, Gorleston. He was in debt to the f extent of ££00 when he commenced this % marine store business, having given guaran- % -tees for the Eastern Furnishing Company, £ though he had nothing of his own. In | November, 1907, he took premises at Crown \ street, Ipswioh, and traded as an iron, rag, \ skin, and metal merchant, and Government \ contractor under the style of Harrison ? Bros., because there was another Harrison % there in. debtor's nephew, who was subseL quently joined by Saxton, a nephew of f debtor's wife He had never represented I' that Harrison Bros, were a different firm t from himself He gave up the Ipswich pres mises in November, 1808, and informed the \ agent's son that Saxton had taken them t over. Debtor had work done to the ( premises to the amount of £24, and paid ;' £5 on account A summons was issued, * and debtor called upon the solicitor acting ~ in the matter and told him hie two sons ! were Harrison Bros., and the business be- \ longed to them, which he admitted was not [, true. He enteied an appearance to the g. summons, and put a plea on the "file that \_ he had nothing to do with the business, |_ which was also false. He had paid r accommodation bills into his banking f U account at Ipswich, which were drawn on IJ- members of his family principally. He had £.: ""^another- account running with the same I; bank at Yarmouth," which was largely supV ported on accommodation bills chiefly 'k drawn on hk son-in-law, Levy, a sponge I"- merchant in London. At the time of his ''fi receiving order 13 bills were running for f £350, of which 11 were held by his bankers i~ at Ipswioh or Yarmouth. When he dis- ' counted the other two for £50 each he could not deny he assured Hopkins and Co., : jwho took them, that they were bona fide ' trade bills. Wiben he gave up business at Ipswich, Saxton paid him £20 for the stock. Debtor and his partner, J.. I. Saxton, of St. Giles street, Norwich, then hired Copenhagen wharf, Limehouse, for one " year certain from 11th November last, at £52 annum, the landlord to allow £10, th« cost of removing the debris debtor represented to be there. No deed was entered into, and they traded under the style of (Walters and Parker. Why?— Because there was a Harrison and Saxton at Ipswich, and we also went to the Eastern Counties. It was not a very sweet-sounding name?— That is not for me to say. Was it because you wanted to hide your identity ?— Nb. Why take, this name of Walters and Parker?—l suggested Lewis and Parker, but my nephew suggested that Walters and Parker would sound better. They are quite assumed names?— Oh yes. Did Saxton manage the business and you travel ? — Yes. You raised money, by a bill on your son-in-law for £122 13s 10d?— Yes. Was that amount fixed to give it the appearance cf being genuine trade bills? — I donM; know Does it sound likely? — Yes. Debtor, in" further examination, said Ore business of Walters and Parker was a failure from the start. Mr Saxton could not stand the London climate, and there was a dissolution that wa<i not gazetted. Debtor took over the stock at £60, and the liabilities were £120. In June last an execution was levied at Regent road, ■Yarmouth, and a judgment summons was issued against him in the Ipswich Court. He. did not want to go to_ prison, aud

therefore filed his petition, kothing short of this would have induced Lim to file his petition. A number of creditors took proceedings against him, but recovered no thing. A firm named Feavior Bros., of Harleston, sold him some rubber to the value of 39s 9d, for which he gave a cheque, though Le had not a fraction to meet it. The cheque was returned dishonoured, and he wrote to Harleston, stating that if they waited a little while he would pay. He was asked to return the rubber, but did not do so In May he went to Mundesley, bought metal to the value of £3 19s 7d from Mr Morton, and promised to pay for it a day or two later. He sold the metal as soon as he received it. In May last he went to Norwich to see Mr Thorn, and purchased rubber to the value of £8 0s 3d, and gave a cheque for it, though his account was overdrawn £113, but the bank allowed him an overdraft of £100. He had for some time been paying money into the bank to reduce the overdraft, and there was nothing to meet the cheque which was dishonoured. The rubber was put straight on to rail at Norwich before he left consigned to Paros and Sons, Shad well, from whom he received £8 123. On May 25 he went to Sheringham, and agreed to buy from Mr Cox- a quantity of iron at 35s per ton, which was sent by rail tc Gorleaton, and there sold to Mr Leak, who had made advances on. account to debtor. In a'fortnight between May and June debtor received £26 odd for metal and rubber, but neither Feaviory- Morton, Thorn, nor Cox received a penny from him for their goods. The £13 he paid to his solicitors to file his petition included £7 out of the £26 and £6 borrowed from his daughter. Debtor denied that he first gave it to his daughter. He and his family also lived out of the £26. He kept no books of account, and had* no record of his trading. The only asset he had returned was the x.13 paid to his solicitors. His daughter liv«d with him at Regent road, where his wife had a baker's shop, house, and restaurant of which she became tenant in i»US, when she took over an assignment of a lease from the previous occupier. Debtor was at that time an undischarged bankrupt, but this was not the reason his wife was tenant. He had control of the business as husband of his wife The Official Receiver : I don't know what that means. Some husbands are not able to control their wives.— Debtor: I have nd control over the money. Do you buy goods?— Yes. Why ?— Because I kno.v more than she does. You say ir. is your wife's separate business?— Entirely ; but I was always helpingher. The lease is hers, and everything else is hers Whore is the lease? — At the bank. whose account '—Mine. Has your wife any bank account? — No. Are the goods supplied to this business invoic°d to you? — No. Have you not been regarded as the propi ietor of the business?— l don't kno^y what people think. Is there anything in the place belonging to yoa? — No. You remember a pstition baing filed against your wife four years ago? — Yes You were called as a witness? — Yes. And swore entirely different to what you say now? — No; just the same You said then, " I always supervised the business. Nothing was bought without my authority, and my wife was in the kitchen. I took all the moneys and paid for everything." Is that, true? — Yes Is this true, " I took all the profits of the business " T — Yes ; I had to in order to pay off the £800 I made myself liable for Is this true, "My wife has never traded separately from me"? — If it is hers, don't I do the business for her? You said, " I always considered the business a joint concern " ? — That is as far as the profits are concerned ' Is it true that you engaged and discharged employees ? — Yes. And "the money all went into a family purse, of which I had control"? — Quire right. If I want £20 I don't say to my wife, "Will you give it to me?" but I take it. Debtor, in further examination, said he bought certain furniture at Inswich for the place on the hire-purchase system, but the landlord put in the fittings and fixtures A distress was put in for £20 and costa early this month, and the furniture in three rooms was seized*. Then his daughter obtained some money and paid out the distrtss. He now considered that the furniture belonged to his daughter. The chief cause of his insolvency was giving guarantees for the Eastern Furnishing Company, to losses made at. Ipswich, and on his London venture. The Provincial Union Bank at Ipswich filed a petition against his wife for £80, but no portion of that amount had been repaid. He had neither gambled nor drunk, and beyond his statements he had no proof of his losses except his deficiency. The examination was closed.