BROMLEY’S BANKRUPTCY.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1348, 28 August 1883, Page 2

BROMLEY’S BANKRUPTCY.

The nf the debtor was held in | the Supic,... .. . .. u office this morning. Mr. 11. E. Kenny . eared for the trustee, and Mr. W. R. Robinson for the debtor. Examined by the trustee, Sydney Smith Josiah Rowley Bromley, sworn, stated on the 12th March, 1883, he was carrying on business in the ' id shoe trade and general commission u • -y. His calling, when there was anything to do, at that time, was that of a commission agent. He was not doing any business in that line, but was in practice. He had no particular office on Maech 12, but used to do business in the loot shop. He had advertised that he was a commission agent, but had no standing advertisement. People generally knew he was a ci-nimission agent as he had carried on business as such, I and as auctioneer before he took tho boot shop. On March 12, 1883, he was not indebted to Alfred J, Cooper in the sum of £lB3. He owed Cooper for wages at that time something under £1(1. Jlo executed the bill of sale t.o Cooper, of the boot shop, in tru» M for another party, from whom he money to buy boots-_; rom He lefused ~o n.hetiier he lived with Eliza » Wilhibre as her husband end that she went by I the name of M-s Bromley 7 . —An answer was insisted oh.—The debtor said he was quite j prepared to answer any questions about his business, but nut about private affairs.—. Mr. Kenny quoted anthorites to the debtor showing that he must answer such questreh. He further stated that in order 10 see the validity the bill of sale the question must be answered, but if the debtor refused he could be committed for contempt.—The debtor said he would rather take the alternative, but absolutely refused to an-

swer the question. —The question was formally put by the trustee, and the debtor refused to answer it, giving as h,s reason that it did not touch Upon his insolvency, or his creditors.—The trustee said although they did not want to go into private affaira, the question must be put. —T»ie debtor said he refused to say whether Eliza Wilmore was a spinster or married woman at the time the money was advanced. It was just possible he (debtor) did not know. He would not answer it He did not know. Eb'za Wilmore was living in Gisborne at the lime the Bill was executed. She was living in his house. The money, £l3B, advanced by Eliza Wilmore, was advanced in several sums. These moneys were advanced for the purposes of the boot and shoe business. He Kepu no cisii book. He produced the bank book. He could not say whether tho amounts were paid into the bank. He never dreamt of th»« o f thing, and was rather The only cash-book he kept was the one in the boot shop, of money paid over the counter and accounts paid. The ledger does not show the £l3B paid by Eliza Wilmore. The ledger did not show the £l3B under his own name. He could give the dates of amounts paid by Eliza Wilmore from a private memo. book. First entry. August 3rd, 1882, borrowed £75 for buying boots. The entry was made at the time, or a day or two after. He would most distinctly swear that they were not made after he received the summons. I’’ ere were other entries. He did not tnink his private books should be examined. Jan. 15, 1883, £25 Heymanson and Co for booh. He paid that firm on sth June, 1882. He could not say if the i'em £47 was for boots, but thought so. Probably it was not paid into the bank until a month later. He would have been more careful had he anticipated these proceedings. On March 12th Miss Wilmore, being uneasy aborat. her money, in- j sisted on a bill of sale, but did not wish her name to appear therein* for reasons which witness declined to give. The sum of £lO is also for boots. The money borrowed for boots is not covered by the bill of silo. Miss Wilmore’s j-casonsjfor not wishing her name to appear in the bill of sale were private, and may or may not have been given to witness. I iho objected to his going into tho boot shop. He imagined she did not desire any connection with the business. He declined to state Miss Wilmore’s reasons for having her name kept out of the bill of sate. He believed he invariably receded the advances in cash, but | may have got some cheques. Got the ciwi from j Eliza Wilmore’s own hands. When 1 got | the cheeks they were signed by Eliza Brom- j ley, and went through the bank in that name, Eliza Wilmore signed the cheques in the name of Eliza Bromley. I don’t know how it was the money was sent in that name. 1 only know that 1 got the money from her. She kept her money in the Hauk of New Zealand and also in the Post-office Savings Bank here, and in the Union Bank at Wellington. Eliza Wilmore is no relation of mine. She advanced me the money because I was pressed. 1 don’t know whether I told Mr Cooper that she had advanced the money. At this time (12th March) it was quite likely that she was passing under another name. I don’t want to answer the question “What name she was going under at this time ?” Ou the 22th March He was not overdrawn

at the bank Ll 7. On the 12th March he was in credit. On the 12th March, 1883, he owed Sargood and Son something ; but he could not tell how much. The whole of his invoices and books were left in his shop, and he never saw them since. He could not say whether the amounts stated in his list were owed on March 12. On March 12 he owed Sargood about L2O. On the same day he owed, he thought, Hamenson and Son, LI9. On March 12 he owed Toomer and Son something ; he could not say how much. He started the boot business alone iu April, 1882. He had very little capital of his own when he commenced the boot business. He did not know what amount of actual capital he had himself. His books would not show it. He had LI ,500 or LI ,800 owing to him in debts which he had purchased. He borrowed the money to commence business from Eliza Wilmore. He could not say how much to start with; some of the books would show it. He thought the amount was LBO. He had two entries of LlO on April 3, and L7O on April 27, 1882. Those were the first instalments paid to Toomer Bros, for boots. He borrowed lots of money, which he never kept account of from Eliza Wilmore. Miss Wilmore advanced altogether on the boot business about £l5O or £loo—may be more or less. In the | list Eliza Wilmore is down for £6OO. Other I mo.iey, apart from £l5O, was adva 0 1. I Some of it, for purchasing furniture for his house; perhaps £2OO for furniture, ,£4O to pa y auctioneer’s licence at Wellington, and the rest was to pay for his business expenses He had to provide during last year for a lady two children aud himself. He refused to say if the children were his. I lie lady was j Eliza Wilmore. On March 12, 1883, Miss , Wilmore was living with, him under the name , Bromley. The pocket book (producetl) is live years old. He had it since 1875. His niece had given it to him in Hobart. He saw her write what was iu the first leaf. He could not explain why the entries were in Eliza \\ ilmore s name, when the money came to her under the name of Eliza Bromley- Miss \V ilmore did not care to provide f ,,r the in the first statement as she would let creditors have the benefit it. \Vhe n s l ie found there was opposition to the bills, she claimed the lot. The whole of the £290 bill of sale to Townley was in trust at first, but afterwards Townley made himself secure for The balance of the £l2O was in trust for Eliza \\ ilmore. Mr Townley was quite aware that the money came from

Eliza Wilmore for payment of furniture, ; Miss Wilmore told Mr Townley, There was | over £2OO worth of furniture. He paid for I some out of Eliza Wilmore’s money, and i some has not been paid for yet. It is possible that he told Townley to hold the bill of sale in trust for Eliza Bromley. On Nov. 15 he could not say what the £l5 was drawn for. He may have some of the butts of his cheque books.—The trustee asked the debtor to produce his cash-book re the boot shop, and also butts of cheques.—To Mr Robinson : He conducted his business under the name of S. J. Bromley since he could remember. He had never done any kind of trade before he opened the present boot shop. If a good business is being done there is no need of books being used for commission agency, or even an office.—Mr. Robinson took objection to the notice that had been sent to the debtor, as it was a notice under the 16Gth clause of the Act, and not under the ]67th I section of the Art, and, therefore Mr. Bromley would sign the evidence under A second objection he wn/J,; b , i ia , ie e ' ’ ought to have been taker I P erf ‘^„ !lT jy £be trustee, ' Miss Eliza Wilmore was then called. Mi I Brassoy appeared for Miss Wilmore, and ob jected to the Press being present. The ■ trustee upheld the objection, and the re j porters were excluded