MEETING OF CREDITORS.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 291, 21 November 1884, Page 2

MEETING OF CREDITORS.

An adjourned meeting of creditors in the estate of Mr. W. S. Greene was held yesterday afternoon for the purpose of ascertaining what proposals the debtor would be able to make towards the payment of a dividend. The debtor stated that he had been fortunate enough to meet a friend since the meeting yesterday who had agreed to render him assistance in the matter, and he (the debtor) was therefore prepared to make an offer of 2s 6d in the £ cash, payable on Monday, and 2s 6d in six months time, that would then be allowing him a chance to recover himself a little, and perhaps if fortune favored him he would be able to pay the remainder of his debts in the course of a further period of time. That was all he could do at the present time.

In reply to Mr. Matthews the debtor stated he gave the creditors to understand that the second instalment would be guaranteed to them.

Mr. J. R. Hurrey asked the Assignee if he could put some questions to the debtor? The Assignee said Mr. Hurrey should have attended yesterday’s meeting. They could not go into further evidence now. Mr. Hurrey said it was of great importance that the questions should be put. Mr. Matthews pointed out that this being only an adjourned meeting, questions could now be put to the debtor. He would like to say a word or two in regard to the debtor’s proposal of a composition. Any resolution they choose to pass then would not have any effect until it was confirmed by a future special meeting, but he thought before they did pass a resolution they should have no doubt as to the value of the estate. For instance he took it that the debtor showed assets worth 8s in the £, quite ignoring the properties which had been given away absolutely and for no consideration whatever; ignoring those properties altogether there was clearly Bs. in the £ to be realized, and looking to the position generally, that the debtor had made away with the property, he did not say dishonorably, notwithstanding those facts he only offered ss. in the £. He sent a telegram away that morning enquiring as to the value of the debtor’s property at the North Shore, Auckland, and learned that that property was only a mile from the sugar works and was consequently of more value than £5 per acre, as had been made out. He would vote against the composition offered by the debtor in its present shape. Others might support it, but if any ellucidation of the value of the estate could be made by questions being asked he considered they should be put. Another thing he ascertained: The debtor stated he valued his house at £l5O and that he insured it for £l5O, he now found out that the debtor when insuring it stated that the house was not completed, and he put a value of £2OO on it. The debtor stated in reply that when a man made a statement of his assets and liabilities he generally put down the assets at their utmost value, and if the creditors choose they could realize on them for their full value or otherwise. Mr. Hurrey asked the debtor how ho proposed to support his family when he entered into the deed of settlement with his wife in May, 1883?

The Assignee refused to allow the question to be put, as it was not a question for that meeting. Mr. Hurrey asked if, at the time the deed was entered into conveying all property to his wife, the debtor owed anything at all. The debtor asked who had said he had macle all his property over to his wife ?

Mr. Hurrey said the Press stated so. If it was wrong it should be rectified, and false reports should not be allowed to go abroad. The Assignee’s minutes were then referred to, and the Press report was found to be correct.

The Assignee refused to allow Mr. Hurrey to ask any more questions, but agreed to let him speak himself as to the conduct of the debtor.

Mr. Hurrey then addressed the meeting at length. He said they found in 1888 the debtor executed a deed in favor of his wife, and thereby handed over to her all the pro. perty of which he was then possessed, amounting to about £7OO. The debtor still continued to trade and receive credit from certain people in the district, but the deed of settlement was not generally known. He did not know it, and always subscribed to the trade circular ever since it staited. Mr. Matthews said it was in the circular of June 18th. Mr, Hurrey said he must then have overlooked it. However, when thi* settlement was made the debtor must have had some liabilities, and how could he provide for those liabilities if he had tied up all hie property ? Only by what he earned in the future, and by hypothecating all his probable earnings. Sufficient money should have been left to meet the liabilities. The transaction in connection with this particular property—land and house—was wrong. The debtor came to him and spoke about erecting a building according to certain terms, ana offered to give him two cows and calves, valued at £8 each as a portion of the remuneration for timber, &c. He (Mr. Hurrey) asked how the balance would be paid, and received a reply that it would be paid in prompt cash. The debtor then gave him an order, which was duly executed, and it was not until Mrs. Greene came to him that he began to understand that she was in the business at all, and he found that he had been supplying the timber, and putting it on land owned by Mrs. Greene, and not by the debtor, though the latter ordered it, and of course it was then out of his power, and also that of the debtor’s, and was as good as lost. He considered that the debtor, in honest trading, should have enlightened him in the matter. He did not go there in any way antagonistic to the debtor, but simply came to understand what was the present method of arriving at justice. He considered there was sufficient assets in the building alone to pay everybody 20s. in the £, without touching the other property, and he would not be a party to taking the offer made by the debtor of only ss. in the £. The Assignee said before anybody else addressed the meeting some one should move a proposition. Mr. Matthews proposed “ That the debtor's offer be not accepted.” Mr. Hurrey seconded, Mr. Joyce moved as an amendment “ That the offer be accepted,” because if they attempted to recover more by law they would lose even the ss. in the £. Mr. Matthews said that the fear of costs ought not to frighten them, because costs could not be incurred by the Assignee without the consent of the creditors. After further delay the amendment was put and lost, the original proposition being duly carried.