IN BANKRUPTCY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 57, 10 March 1915, Page 7

IN BANKRUPTCY.

ESTATE OF R. H. CAMERON

A meeting oi' creditors in the estate of Robert Hugh Cameron, of Stratford, contractor, bankrupt, was held on Tuesday afternoon at toe office ol Mr A. Coleman. Deputy OllhiaJ AsBroad way, when tlie following (.vditor, wore present: Messrs «L Masters, J. 'McAllister (Hospital Board), U. H. Robinson, R. H. White ajul Co.. T. 1). Colson, W. Brooking, A. o’Lcary(Egmont Clothing va i ami parattord Co-operative Store Co., Ltd (Air W. AlcDonald).

Air 11. Spence represented Airs Elizabeth Brooking, and Air S. Alacalister was present on behalf of Air Bert Hark ness. 'Hie debtor was present, and also Mr Rutherfurd as his conn, sol.

A statement of debtor’s financial affairs was presented, showing secured creditors £1,796 10s, being State Advances Office, Wellington, £730; AA . T. S. Trow in, £2.30; Mrs A. A. AlcDouald, £330; B. Harkness, £111; C. S. Nielsen £162 10s. Unsecured creditors total is set down at £137 Ms, and the estimated value of securities £2.200.

The assets are stated to ho: Stock in trade, one buggy and horse £2,

book debts (£2,304) estimated to produce £IOO, cash in hand £2, furniture £2O, total £Bl3 10s. There is also an amount of £6lB duo under a judgment of the Supreme Court recovered by Curtis Bros against Elizabeth Brooking. Percy George Brooking and Robert Hugh Cameron, the debtor.

Debtor in his .sworn statement sot out that in the year 1902 he entered into partnership with Mr P. G. Brooking as general contractors. His assets he then valued at about £OOOO. The value of the plant he put into the partnership exceeded that of Mr .Brooking by £BBI 17s Gd. Up to the time o: entering into the partnership ho had almost invariably been successlid with contract work. Several very wet seasons iollowed that in which

the partnership was entered into, and at the same time suitable labor became more scarce each year. Owing chiefly to these two factors the firm lost heavily on several large contracts. In 1900 the frm purchased a farm on Croydon Hoad. Debtor sold private property at Waitara in 1906 for £250 in order to meet payments on this farm, and subsequently raised a further sum of £SOO on his private properly in Seyton Street, the onus of meeting the mortgage falling upon himself. During the same year the firm undertook a largQ metalling con. tract at To Worn, and raised a further sum of £250 on his East Hoad property to provide capital for canwing on the work. While tho contract was in progress, tho Croydon Hoad farm was sold, tln> (inn realising about fGOO nett. Debtor further stated that awhile he put £750 into the firm, Mr Brooking contributed nothing, and instead of taking the £G(H) profit on tfie farm in part payment of the £750 raised by him oil mortgages of his private properties, this amount had lieen sunk in the Te Wcra job in the hope that lie would lie able to secure repayment out of tho contract moneys, but on completion the contract showed a loss of £IOOO. During the progress of the contract, debtor had the misfortune to lose a limb, and the management was left to Mr Brooking. Debtor detailed other transactions which lie claimed showed indebtedness to himself and also a balance of £2OO which was still owing for the hire of plant loaned to an Eltham resident during 1910 and 1911. In 1911, further contracts in the King Country were taken, and during the progress of these contracts the Engineer in charge decided that the material originally specified was not the most suitable for the work. Debtor pointed out that if hotter materials were used the cost would be increased by 2s Gd per yard, or an approximately additional expenditure of £560. The Engineer agreed to this estimate, and stated ho would adjust the price of the contract and pay the difference when the job was finished. Owing to tho wet summer, the contract was not finished before the winter, and in May of that season, after tho death of the Engineer, Mr Cameron discovered that deceased had not notified his Council of the alterations of tho contract specifying tho increase in the price. A claim was made on the Council, and it was admitted to ho a morally good one, but as the firm had no legal standing, tho Council refused to pay. The loss on this contract was between £SOO and £6OO. During the time tho firm was contracting it also lost from accident and disease about twenty draught horses and thirty working hillocks worth a total of £1075. In 1912 the Bank called np the firm’s overdraft, and not being in a position to meet it they approached Messrs Masters and Son, to whom they were indebted. and offered them the security over the plant if they would meet tho overdraft, Mr Cameron also offering as security £2,000 worth of his own private property. Mr Brooking agreed to retire from the firm, and Mr Masters and debtor agreed to jointly pursue contracting for two years, during which time they would endeavour to dispose ■ of tho surplus plant, and also reduce Ids liability to Masters and Son. Before the contract which Cameron and Brooking was engaged upon when Mr Masters took over was completed, the latter declined a, suggestion to take on fresh contracts and proposed that the plant he sold. This was agreed to. and as some difference arose between the parties subsequently as to the realisation

of the plant, the mailer in dispute was referred to arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator on this matter has not vet been given. Debtor further staled that outstanding accounts on the last contract of Cameron and Brooking amounted to over ;£BUU, «vvh nothing coming out n; Vie contract it. meet them, and the la.dv ol eadeavt t<.■ ing to do so placed him in a very a.. . ward positioa. Since then he had u.sen his best endeavours to pay every bod.., and by further mortgaging his remaining property and using his utmost resources he had paid accounts amounting to £792 ]1 s id. Debtor further staled that the direct cause of his bankruptcy was that lie had backed a private bill for £G'JG in 1 DOG, and under pressure subsequently in 1912 he signed a new bill to cover the first. About twelve mouths ago lie was called upon to meet this obligation. About six months ago he was summoned to meet the bill, and was advised to confess judgment jointly and severally with the Brookings in the matter, and did so. Until about a fortnight ago he had heard no more' about it, and then found a bailiff in his house and w.is informed that his property would be sold up in five days, it having been elected to take execution against him. Being utterly unable to satisfy the Judgment he had taken the only alteinative oi filing his petition m bankruptcy in order that his private creditors might share in the batance of his assets. He had been making every effort to pay off his few remaining creditors, and would soon have, been char of, debt. Debtor said it was unfortunate he had been forced into bankruptcy, through being asked to meet a claim for money raised for the use of other people, and in respect oi which he had received no financial gain whatever .

The Assignee, after reading debtor’s statement, asked if there were any remarks to make before the statement was signed. Mr J. Masters asked that certain statements be withdrawn in connection with the transaction between debtor and himself before he statement was signed, and proceeded to enter into details and to explain the circumstances which led up to an advance of £SOO by him to Mr Cameron. Proceeding, Mr Masters said that when he took a bill-of-sale on thfc stock he distinctly asked debtor if there was any other thing be owed, and he distinctly said “no.” » Mr Cameron at this point heatedly denied Mr Masters’ statement.

The Assignee called attention of those present to the fact that no cicenter who has not proved could take any part in the proceedings, and as only two had proved there was no quorum Mr S. Macalister asked Mr Masteis which statement in the debtor’s written statement he objected to. Mr Masters commenced expkin.'ng, but Mr Rutherford objected to Mr Masters further opening out because he said “Yon are not a creditor here.”

Mi' Spence then drew attention to the fact that the statement of affairs had not been presented for inspection by the creditors-' within a sufficient number of days as laid down hy the Bankruptcy Act, and that therefore no result could be arrived at that afternoon.

Mr Rutherl'urd explained the reason why the statement of affairs was not available at the time mentioned by Mr Spence, some legal argument following.

Mr Masters, by leave of the Deputy Official Assignee, proceeded to refer to a loan of £BSO to another person, and further stated that it .was not mentioned in the debtor's statemcid that he purchased the plant and had not merely a lien on it, and he (Mr Masters) held a properly drawn up receipt for the same. There was nothing, Mi Masters said, to show that the plant was purchased by him, the document simply stating he took a lieu on it. The Assignee, on asking if anyone wished to cross-examine the debtor on his statement, Mr R. Spence said he desired to do so, but he was not in a position to proceed at that meeting.

Ultimately, and in view of the fact that the Arbitrator, as set out in debtors statement, had not yet given his award, it was agreed to adjourn the meeting until Monday afternoon next, the 15th iust., at 2.30.