MEETING OF MR J. B. DAVIES’S CREDITORS.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1212, 28 November 1882, Page 2

MEETING OF MR J. B. DAVIES’S CREDITORS.

A meeting of the creditors in the estate (insolvent) of Mr J. R. Davies was held in the Bailiff’s room in the R.M. Court buildings this afternoon. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr Davies was examined, and requested to pro luce his papers. He stated that he was unable to produce any papers, in consequence of being unable to go to Napier to obtain them for want of funds. A discussion took place as to putting the debtor on oath. It was proposed by Mr W. Adair, seconded by Mr J. Brown, that Mr Davis be examined on oath. An amendment proposed by Mr E. P. Joyce, and seconded by Mr McAulay, that he be not put on oath, was carried. Mr Adair asked Mr Davies whether it was his intention to produce the papers referred to at last meeting. Mr Davies answered in the affirmative, and stated that he would require funds to enable him to proceed to Napier and get the papers, and return to Gisborne. Mr DeLautour said he would be glad to afford the creditors any assistance in his power regarding the papers in question, but thought that at present it would be best to go on with the business of the meeting. Mr Davies said he had written io his partner, Mr O’Connor, since his being adjudicated a bankrupt, but had received no reply. Mr O’Connor is a partner in all these contracts in Poverty Bay. Mr G. Johnstone said it. was highly desirable to come back to the question of funds, as the documents concerned are desirable. In reply to Mr E. P. Joyce Mr Davies stated that he originally came up here on behalf of Mr Rees, who engaged him with a view to the execution of ce tain Harbor Works, for which he was to receive certum sums of money and certain lauds, conditionally on the execution of the work. Mr De Lautour himself had drawn out the agreement for these Harbor Works, to which the Taruheru Bridge was subsequent. Mr Rees on behalf of certain Natives had accepted terms, and he had received progress payments, one from Mr De Lautour, and one

frdffi Capt. Tucker, The next progress payment was £3OO from Read’s Trustees, out of which he lent Mr Rees £lOO in Napier, the larger part of which Mr Rees had repaid, There was a further progress payment by Read’s Trustees, over which he had been sued. The land portion of the contract involved the Kopua block, at a price of £1,200. This block he had partly sold to MrTutchen, at a profit. Rees afterwards repudiated the Te Kopua transaction, having sold it to the N.Z.L.S.C. Company, for £1,600. Subse--1 quently an arrangement was entered into i with Common Shelton, &Co which also involved the Te Kopua block, as he chimed i that block on conqilction of. the bridge. The bridge had never been given out of his pos- , session until he was proclaimed a bankrupt. He had been waiting for a long time for his i money, and when McAulay went up to the 1 Oil Springs he entered into an agreement with Rees to pay Thompson. He claimed the bridge, and claimed £lO,OOO breach of contract in the matter of the Harbor Works. He hud refused to join Proudfoot In a large . contract, of which he wbuld have done well j as also he would here had the other contracting parties been faithful to their cohtracts. He acknowledged receiving £1,400 on acj count of the bridge. He would not couple Mr De Lautour as a partner with the oppo« site side in these contracts, but still he would ask him what he knew about them ?

Mr De Lautour said he represented Mr Holt, whose claim was not so large as had : been stated. Mr Holt held two bills of Mr Davies, one for £6BO, and one for £2OO. The payment that the N.Z.L.S. Company had made on account of the Taruheru Bridge amounted to over £2,000, the contract price being £1076. The position as regards the bridge is that if Mr Davies could prove special damages from non-delivery of a special block of land, he might, or hia creditors might, be able to support an action. Mr De Lautour here read a number of telegrams to and from Mr Davies referring to the bridge. Mr Davies wished to know whether it had not been settled with Read’s Trustees that i they should find the money, and Rees and I the others the land. I Mr Joyce requested to know by what : authority Mr Greenwood had given posses- . sion of the bridge to Messrs, De Lautour, and others. Mr Davies could give no information on this head. Mr Joyce failed to see that Mr Greenwood j had complied with his duties as Trustee. ! He had rendered himself criminally liable in so dealing with the property of the credij tors, and which he was responsible for as a i Trustee for the debtor, and pressed for a dis- : tinct answer on this point. Mr Greenwood said that he saw no end to i this line of argument. He would tell the ; creditors anything they wished. He had ; given no permission to any one to take posI session of the bridge. As the keys were moveable chattels, and as he was entitled to i their possession he Jiad sued for them. Mr Johnston said that having heard from Mr Davies the nature of the documents . referred to, ho thought it wise to ascertain t the views of creditors regarding the value lof them. Had Mr Greenwood any money • belonging to the bankrupt. ' Mr Greenwood stated that ho had drawn ' about £l3 from the Bank, £9 of which had ' been paid to Mr Thompson for looking after the bridge, and the remainder swallowed up in costs.

Mr Davies said if time were given him he ' would undertake to bring the actions within ' six months, and in vase of recovery would ' repay every creditor With interest. If Conj nor got his money lie would pay before. Mr De Lautour said if any one was to be sued it should be the solvent partner. ' Mr Finn said that Connor had recovered 1 large sums of rnnnay in the Supremo Court, ! but it had been appealed against. Still I Connor was very confident of winning the j appeal. i Mr Davies said that if he were kept here j without money he was simply being debarred ; from earning a living. He could always i earn from £9OO to £lOOO per annum, even on wages. Mr Joyce proposed that Mr Davies be ; allowed twelve months to pay his debts at : 20s in the £, and that a deed be prepared in ’ accordance with the Act. He would advo- | cate that the bankruptcy be annulled us j there is nothing to be gained by it. There ' is no estate, and if he Was made a free man 1 there would be some hopes for the creditors, • but by making him a bankrupt those ’ hopes were destroyed. He thought Mr , Davies made a very fair statement. He i thought Mr Davies should be allowed a fair | opportunity of sucing where he had a claim. i Mr McAuley seconded the motion. Mr G. Johnston proceeded to read the ■ minutes of assets and liabilities, showing the former at £250 available to meet the latter, i.e., throwing the lawsuits on one side. He thought no trustee or creditor could work the lawsuit as well as the debtor himself, and he thought time should bo allowed him < with that object. The debtor proposed to I pay all his creditors in full in twelve months, j Mr Joyce proposed, and Mr McAuley se- * conded, that the debtor be allowed twelve ■ months to pay his debts, and that the debtor ! prepare a deed to that effect forthwith. j TJie resolution was lost through the clause I affecting the amount of claims and number of creditors not failing to be carried. j Mr Croft proposed, and Mr DeLautour se- ; conded. that Messrs W. Adair and G. John- ‘ ston be appointed Trustees to report on the ' estate within a month.

Mr Joyce proposed as an amendment that three trustees be appointed. Mr Thomson seconded this, and proposed that Mr Joyce be the third trustee. The amendment was carried and the meeting then concluded.