MEETING OF CREDITORS.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 227, 4 September 1884, Page 2

MEETING OF CREDITORS.

A meeting of creditors in the estate of Mr. A. McNab was held at the office of the Assignee yesterday afternoon. The Assignee (Mr. Bennett) occupied the chair, and there were present Messrs. Morgan, Matthews, Coleman, Chrisp and Bennett. Mr. Nolan appeared for the debtor. The Assignee read the debtor’s reply to the correspondence from Mr. Suitor read at last meeting.

Mr. McNab explained how the £6OO advance by Suitor & Co. had been made. By the Assignee—The mortgage was given to secure payment of the borrowed money. The debtor having been sworn, said—He was about eighteen months in partnership with Mr. Suitor. He had charge of the financial department. He signed all cheques and bills in the name of the firm without reference to Suitor. Sutton & Co. pressed for payment of their account about a month or two before the dissolution. He could not say how much was owing for interest at the time they threatened to take possession of the property. The losses during the first year were £lOOO foY bad beer and bad debts in addition. During the whole term of the partnership he could not say what the loss amounted to. There was some money borrowed from Suitor’s friends during the last nine months of the partnership to meet a bill due to Compton <& Co. The receipts during that term were sufficient to pay their way. At the meeting between Suitor, Hancock and others on 30th June there was a statement submitted—at least he believed so. He did not see it, although present in the office. There was no discussion about the statement as far as he was concerned. The liabilities at this time were about £2,000 or £3,000. He could not say if Suitor’s statement that they were £3,700 was correct. He applied for a copy of the statement, which Suitor refused, after the dissolution. He also applied to Sutton & Co. with the same result. He knew Suitor was drawing up the statement and may have seen it in their own office. He did not know the value of the book debts at that time. Book debts amounted to £3O a month. He did not know the value of the stock-in-trade. He never thought when asked to attend the meeting on the 30th June that a compulsory dissolution was intended. He had no outside source for meeting the liabilities other than the book debts. There were no overdue promissory notes that he remembered. Neither Read, Kidd, nor Mason had overdue notes. Bills were given by those parties, but were met when due. The meeting was held in Sutton and Co’s, office. He could not tell the amount of bills due in July. The Union Bank had been pressing for their overdraft which was reduced by Sutton and Co. He gave a promissory note to the bank for £lOO, that is the overdraft referred to by Suitor. He thought they could have met their liabilities in July had they attempted to carry on. Had Sutton and Co., not pressed them they could have pulled through. He never asked Sutton and Co. to take the business over. When Suiter gave the promissory note for £1,500 he received a receipt There was an arrangement that Suitor and Sutton & Co. should try and get a purchaserfor McNab’s shate which the receipt represented. There was nothing said as to who was to receive the proceeds. There was an arrangement previously made with Suitor. He (debtor) was compelled by Sutton & Co. to give the receipt. There was a purchaser in view at that time. The note given by Suitor was paid when due. He received £lOO fom Whitson &.Co. This was distinct from Suitor’s claim. The solicitor for Sutton & Co. was Mr. W. Coleman. The documents at Mr. Tyler’s referred to the conveyance of ihe brewery. That is what the late Mr. Tyler said, but he did not peruse them. These deeds he refused to sign, nor had be relinquished his share in the property. He still maintained that the statement made through Hesketh and Richmond was correct. The Gisborne Brewery was leased for £2O a month—not Is. a month as stated by Suitor. He signed the dissolution of partnership. Suitor was to pay all liabilities and receive all debts. He did not consult counsel at the time the dissolution was forced upon him. Mr. Nolan—lt is for the creditors to decide whether they will go on against Suitor. So far as he could learn, in Auckland it was only a matter of waiting to recover from suitor.

Mr. Matthews—There appeared to be no assets of any value, and the only question was whether it was advisable to try and find out the real position. He would propose—-

** That the Assignee apply to Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond for particulars of the nature of Mr. McNab’s claim upon Mr. Suitor arising out of their late partnership, and request their opinion as to whether or not it is of a legally enforcible character, and that copies of the letters in the hands of the Assignee be forwarded to Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond for their guidance in the matter.” If there was anything in the nature of an asset he thought it preposterous to neglect any effort to find it out. Probably if the assignee pressed the matter he might get a compromise. Mr. Nolan (for Whitson and others) seconded. The motion was agreed to. The meeting then adjourned sine die.