EVIDENCE RE W. WILLIAMS'S AFFAIRS.

Patea Mail, 30 June 1882, Page 4

EVIDENCE RE W. WILLIAMS'S AFFAIRS.

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS,

1 In addition to the examination of W. in the District Court, at New Plymouth, Mr T. North gave evidence as tq his claim. Both sons of the debtor wera also examined, and Judge Rawson decided»that a prima fade case had bbieri shown on-Mr North’s application for re-opening the question as to ,transfer of., properly to the .sons, and as to partnership of debtor in the son’s business, It is now competent for Mr North to call npon the; sons, to show canseiin Conrt,.why the transfer of pro-; ]wrty~frpm the debtor to them shonld not pe and also to show why, should hotabe declared partners with the-father and jointly liable for his

■ Thre: Taranaki Herald reports the evidence in addition to what has appeared in the Mail; 1 1 North said; lam the creditor ,qpl petition tj^e,^ebto^jWas ;i a4 r , jpdsftted, ;1 bankrupt.. My solicitors ■ -(Messrs Izard & Bell) issued execution on my judgment, and. the bailiff entered Wilfiams’s honsfe/bntThe debtor turned hint out and' threatened” to shoot himi fj|e debtor’then filed a deed of arranger, ment. Before jthe day 'for the; meeting of predictors, Williams; went with .Mt Adams, bis solicitor, and Mr Farrah, his spaid ragentj, to Wftitotara,, to get the Haitangiwhenua natives to give Farrah their proxy in respect of their claim to the £5,411 <: chequk'''This he did in qrddr to 'dbtaiufthe voting power, but the natives refused, and appointed Mr Duncap |heir agent. The creditors- refused to assent to the deed. ;,.The witness also, g#ve ,as to r; the, way .<in which the proceedings were conducted at the meetibgs’held undefi the bankruptcy, arid as toibe mode in ! which the election of Trusted : catile abbdt, and he alse depbddd'^W 1 alleged irregularities in tbe buying up of debits, and the use of credits proxies by the "d.ebtpr’s sons,, with ’pbject; of defeating bis, (North’s) claim. i William : Williams* jun., the debtor’s eldest son, said: The business, stock-in-trade, 1 and debts were transferred in January, 1879. A little before this we opened an account with the Bank of fiopth, Wales in the name of and Sons/’ and this acconnt. has; not been operated upon in this name np;to the present time. • We-advertised the' firtn as ** Williaihs and Sons,” and afterwards as tc Williams Brothers.” I the reaspn'r of thp change, believe it’ was accidental, through someof the billheadsihaving been printed

by-mistake “ ” My father! was., liable to- ns for the £8429 12a worth of goods- supplied to the Kaitangiwhenba Natives because he ordered them. I cannot produce the orders; he never gave them in writing, Mv father never interfered with business sm.ee .the transfer to ns, or made payments or entries, in,books. I cannot explain hi? paying £lO to an apprentice named Sargeant since the transfer. I peyeral pf my father’s creditors In. fbll oSinca: his .bankruptcy. I cannot tell their natnes; their name is legion. Daniel James Williams, younger sqm | |l|io ;<dtange } in. the name of tne nrmT from Williams and Sons to Williams Bros, was becan.se Mr Bryce h&&oKjehted to my father’s name appearing in' accounts against natives while my father'wasr Land Purchase although he knew,my father had an interest in the business. The claim of £4BO against onr father wmsi for goods supplied by ns to native owners of the Toko Block on my father’s o|sef r . Mango was-one of these natives. Itlookat his account, £ 144, and find thni itr wae inepred for goods supplied by .my father before the. transfer of the boeinesis id nS. The explanation of onr . cfaiming this from my father is that, we allowed onr father to take credit it for

this shha in his purchase from the Toko natives. I heard Mr Christie’s evidence read, in which he says that my father had-not made any advances, and was not authorised to make any. His statement is a lie.' „ “The debtor was re-called, and said thst}h?)h?d -potclaimed payment jof j a debt tfue by, James Hirst to' Wiliams and Sons since the,transfer of the businessto them,^‘and' had not- proved fori (bat debt nnder Mr Hirst’s estate. J.° Hirst was called, and deposed that W. Williams, sen., had, since the time when Williams had said be had retired from‘the business, sued him (Mr Hirst), and had appeared in Court as plaintiff for the debt in question, and had attended three meetings of his creditors, in which he took.’a very active part, .and that he (Williams) had sworn that the debt was due to""himself as a "partner in - \ ' This closed the examination.. f The’ Court considered that a prima facie case for inquiry, had been shown, and granted Mr North’s application. A man 'gathering mushrooms was told that they were poisonous. “ Thank yon,” he replied, “ Fm not going to eat them my self ;I sell them at the hotel*”: