DISTRICT COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1101, 19 October 1883, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

PATE A—WEDNESDAY. (Before His Honor District Judge Rawson.) IN BANKRUPTCY. Be Andrew Young. Mr Hamerlon applied for debtor’s discharge. In opening the case he remarked that it was one of some public importance and notoriety. He wished the debtor to be examined by the Court as a number of rumours had been spread, and debtor was anxious to have bis conduct fully investigated and was prepared to stand or fall by the result. Counsel then commented upon the trustee’s report and said that it did not represent the estate in its true form ; that was correctly represented by the statement of April 17th at which date the debtor assigned by deed the whole of his estate to his creditors, and after that it was managed by the trustee and was out of the power of the debtor. The estate showed assets amounting to £IBO6 instead of £217 ns shown by the statement before the Court. Mr Hamerton then called debtor and placed him under examination.

His Honor read the trustee’s report as follows: The debtor filed his schedule on 28th April last, his assets being put down as £217 5s 4d, and his liabilities at £2772 8s lid. Ho gave ns the principal cause of his failure the great fall in the price of stock ; b»it as most of his purchases had been made, and a considerable amount of his liability incurred within the four months immediately preceding his bankruptcy—during which time the price of stock had not varied to a very large extern, this explanation did not seem very satisfactory to his creditors. The assets valued by the debtor as £217 5s 4 cl have realized about £2B, and there may ho a few pounds yet to come in. The expenses, principally those for the debtor’s lawyer, amount to about £29, so that at present there are absolutely no funds to meet proved unsecured claims amounting to £3509 4s 4d, but which are erroneous in some instances, and therefore might be estimated at £3OOO. The debtor did not, in his filed statement, show a liability to the Bank of New South Wal cs of £739, which was secured by a guarantee of Ida cousin Andrew Young, of Wellington, who in his turn was secured by a bill of sale over assets (also not

shown) which have realised over £BOO, the-balance over the £739 being at present retained by Mr Andrew Y ting, of Wellington, for his expenses in connection with the bill of sale.

A meeting of creditors, to consider the debtor’s application for discharge, was called for—October, but no one attended. I, however, received letters from two Hnwera creditors, staling that they thought his discharge should be opposed, and I know that the bank I represent holds the same view.

Under all the circumstances, therefore, I cannot recommend the debtor’s discharge till the expiration of the full term of three years allowed by tho Act, and I base.my objection to his discharge on the following grounds : Ist. The debtor’s giving a Bill of Sale to his cousin, Andrew Young (in return for his guaranteeing tlie bank to the extent of £7OO and interest) in January last, threemonths before his bankruptcy, to the prejudice of all his creditors when ho certainly should have known ho was insolvent at tho time.

2nd. Tho absence of an}' dividend in lire debtor’s estate. 3rd. The refusal of tho debtor to hand over to the trustee, or include in his assets his deferred payment section, on which he had spent about £4OO of his creditors money.

4tli. That if his discharge is withheld, his creditors may at some future lime derive some benefit from the aforesaid deferred payment section. R. C. TENNENT, Trustee in Estate of Andrew Young.

The debtor stated that the principal cause of his failure was the fire of March last, by which he lost over £400; speculation in pigs, bacon and hams last year, by which he lost £450; loss of a leasehold at Manutahi by an error in the lease, £200; sickness in his family, £l5O ; losses by one Morris, £638 ; and loss by cattle speculations, £3OO. He also stated that he had not incurred liabilities to any extent during the three months preceding his bankruptcy, having made only one purchase during thattime. He was then examined npon the value of the assets, but the. trustee (Mr Tennent) said it was unnecessary to detain theConrt, as he would admit that the items set down were fair, except the land. Debtor was questioned at length as to the v,due of the section and it appeared that the leasehold which had been sold under Mr A. Young’s bill of sale had only realised £6O. The land had since been let for an advance of £2l 6s per year in rental. McGregor’s claim as proved was shown to be excessive by over £2OO, and other claims also were stated to be too making the stated assets approximately correct. Debtor explained that, he had not included the claim of £739 by the Bank of New South Wales because at the time he filed the property had been realised by his cousin under the bill of sale, and that the liability consequently rested with Mr A. Young, of Wellington, under the guarantee given to the hank. Debtor bad stated in his assets the difference between the proceeds of the sale and the liability to the bank, amounting to a sum of £7O. The different points as they arose during the examination were debated by the Trustee and Mr Hamerton, the Court sitting till after six o’clock. It was brought out that debtor had since the execution of the bill of sale paid off considerable sums in money and stock to his creditors.

Mr Hnmcrton urged that debtor had done nothing to warrant his discharge, being withheld, while Mr Tennent argued in the opposite direction, and supported the statement made in his report. His Honor remarked that while debtor might have given up his deferredpayment land to the creditors, he could not be compelled to do so, and upon the evidence as a whole ho would grant the discharge. The Court then adjourned.