MEETING OF R. COOPER’S CREDITORS.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1118, 9 August 1882, Page 2

MEETING OF R. COOPER’S CREDITORS.

At the meeting of creditors in the estate of Robert Cooper this afternoon, the Trustees in Reads Estate appeared by counsel, and were supported by a sufficient number of creditors, to have formed a quorum. No quorum was farmed, and no adjudication was made, the only creditor who asked any question was Mr W. Maude, who asked Mr Gruner whether the necessary bonds were accepted and filed. The reply was in the affirmative, with the proviso that, in accepting such bonds Mr Gruner believed that his appointment as signed by Judge Kenny, and further by Mr Greenwood’s official request to act for him in his absence, gave him power to exercise|such’authority. We distinctly see the bungle. By section 20 of “ The Debtors’ and Cred i tori’ Act, 1876," it is distinctly laid

down that when a meeting of creditors is summoned, and the creditors have assembled at the time and place appointed they SHALL at once elect one of themselves to be a Chairman who shall preside at such meeting and every adjournment thereof, etc., etc. Rule 21 goes on to provide for a minute-book being entered up, entituled, “ The Minute Book of Proceedings in the Bankruptcy of * * * and that such minute-book shall be” as entered in the book, accessible to for fhe purposes of inspection by any person desiring to inspect the same ; but no entry or other proceeding shall in any case be altered or amended except by the Chairman, etc., etc. Proxies shall not be recognised unless to the satisfaction of the Chairman. Now we come to the grist of the matter. Mr Gruner’s appointment is questioned by the very Judge who gave him that appointment, and he very properly refuses in consequence of those questions, to act in the matter. The case was NOT adjourned, Mr Gruner had no power to adjourn it, but it lapsed thro' want of action. There can be no question as to the sufficiency in number of creditors, for we saw as many present as would swamp a bigger estate than Reads, but no election of a Chairman was made, no provision for the future, no adjournment, no proposal from either one side or the other. Judge Hardcastle distinctly asked Mr Greenwood when sitting in rehearing of his deputy’s decision on Cooper’s case, “ Have you a deputy ?” Mr Greenwood replied “ Yes ; Mr Gruner acts as my deputy." “ Thon," said Mr Hardcastle, “he may accept service for me." Between the two* District Judges Mr Gruner is forced on to the horns of a dilemna. If Justice takes its proper and only righteous course Read’s Trustees cannot interfere with Mr Cooper in future Bankruptcy proceedings until the authority for the past proceedings has been decided. The proceedings of to-day must necessarily be argument for a superior Court. There can be no second meeting of creditors until a first meeting has been held as the Law requires.