Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1213, 29 November 1882, Page 2

In the evidence given before the creditors in the insolvent estate of Mr J. R. Davies, on Monday last, some startling assertions were made by that gentleman. Not the least startling is the statement of aff airs between himself, Mr W. L. Rees, and the N.Z. Land Settlement Company, of which Mr C. A. DeLautour is the Secretary. Mr Davies asserts that the Ropua block, valued then at about £1,200, was actually sold to him by Mr Rees as part payment for the construction of the Whataupoko Bridge over the Taraheru River; but that afterwards, and when he (Davies) had sold the Kopua, or nearly completed the sale of it, to Mr Tutchen, Mr Rees refused to let him have it because he had sold ii to the N.Z.L, Settlement Company for £1.500. Surely this is a very curious thing. Then, again, Mr Rees asserts that Davies actually delivered the

Bridge ov?!* to iffm (Rees) after its completion. This, again, Davies denies, alleging that he would not give delivery of tin? Bridge • had retired ? , >■ for Ft. ■ Curiously enough Mr De L u tour, who : seems to play the part of Fid as Achates to . Mr Mr W. L. Rees’s “Pius ZEneas” on I every possible occasion, seems to be singul larly mixed up in these very remarkable I dealings. Of all the curious transactions in ' the way of progress payments which ever | came under our notice, these appear to be the ■ most remarkable. Mr Davies stated that if | his creditors would give him time he would undertake to bring on three actions in the ' Supreme Court, two being against that mysi tenons and indivisible Trinity; Messrs Rees, i DeLautour, and the N.Z. L.S. Company, J and the other against the Oil Springs Com- ; pany. This, however, was strongly opposed ; by Mr DeLautour, who suggested that, in- | stead of giving Da vies an opportunity of j suing those indebted to him. it would be ! wiser for the creditors to proceed against

• Davies’s partner, Connor, who is stated to ' have lately recovered large sums at law. , Well, this view of the case admirably becomes Mr DeLautour, but we hardly think j it would be a good thing for the creditors. If Connor succeeds in obtaining the money he has lately recovered in the Supreme Court, he will, according to his own words, assists Davies in his matters ; but we think, knowing the nature of law suits, it would be a wiser step on the part of creditors to enquire into the grounds of Mr. Davies’s claims referred to, and, if it can be ascertained that they are likely to recover, to cither accept Davies’s offer, or to proceed to action themselves. If the New Zealand Land and Settlement Company are liable in any way, they are easily sued, being a limited liability Conil pany. So with the Oil Springs Company, i But here arises the difficulty. Proteus-like • in change, sometimes the New Zealand Land Settlement Company assumes the form of W. L. Rees and C. A. DeLautour ; sometimes we have a shade of Captain Tucker in it; and at other times it assumes a different form altogether. Nevertheless, they are to be sifted if it is necessary, and if Mr.Davies's statements are true we certainly think he is a very hardly used man, and as such it becomes the duty of his creditors to afford him every protection and such means of arriving at a settlement of moneys due him as they have in their power, and may deem right and just. Of course until everything is settled the bridge over the Taruheru River will be held by the creditors as an asset, all claims to contrary notwithstanding. It is hardly fair that if the bankrupt has been brought into his present position by the laches of laches of others, that he should be made to suffer further for their sake. It would be wise on the part of the Trustees to endeavor to obtain possession of the documents alluded to by Mr. Davies as being now in Napier, and refer them to counsel for opinion as to any liability and value they may imply. By adjudicating him a bankrupt they certainly have charged themselves to a certain extent with the collection of assets, be they easy or difficult to collect. We were glad to hear Mr. Greenwood deny having given anyone authority to assume possession of the bridge, as such authority or permission wonld have been contrary to law and justice. As it is at present there is some chance of this long moot question being at last settled, but no living soul has any right to meddle with the property of a bankrupt, except by the consent and order of creditors. In this instance ; the great opposition to giving Mr. Davies

time to collect debts due to him appears to us to have its origin in the wish to keep him out of a position where he would have a chance of sueing for them.