WOMAN FRUIT DEALER FACES HER CREDITORS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 193, 4 November 1927, Page 9

WOMAN FRUIT DEALER FACES HER CREDITORS

ALLEGATION OF FRAUD

Alleging misrepresentation in the sale of a fruit business at Devonport, Hannah Lavirria Rose Jack, a bankrupt married woman, now living at Silverdaie, met her creditors this morning. She was represented by Mr. W. F. Stilwell.

Bankrupt’s deficiency amounted to £47. Her debts to unsecured creditors totalled £B2 and her assets were £35. Bankrupt said, in a written statement, that in September, 1926, she purchased a fruit business at Devon port for £BO, paying- £lO deposit and subsequently £2O in instalments, leaving £SO owing. She alleged the takings were misrepresented by the vendor. The shop was in a side street and she was unable to make it pay. This venture was closed down in February of this year. She opened again on the main street hoping business would improve, but trade remained bad. In August the business was sold for £4O, with which trading debts were paid. The vendor sued for the monies owing and she intended to defend alleging misrepresentation, but owing to a misunderstanding with the plaintiff’s solicitors judgment was given against her. Subsequently a distress warrant was issued and bankruptcy proceedings followed. “BELIEVED ALL SHE WAS TOLD”

Cross-examined by the official assignee, Mr. G. N. Morris, debtor said that when she opened the fruit shop she had no assets and no liabilities. The £lO paid in deposit was given her by her husband and the £2O from earnings in the shop. She had had no previous experience in shop-keeping, and no knowledge of book-keeping. Questioned regarding the purchase of the shop, bankrupt said she believed all she was told about it by the vendor. She alleged that figures purporting to represent the turnover were made up, also from a round run in conjunction with the business, so that all monies were put through the same books.

At this stage Mr. Terry, representing the petitioning creditor, took strong exception to the assignee’s questions regarding the alleged misrepresentation. He challenged the bankrupt’s statements, which he held to be without foundation. “Oh, well,” said Mr. Morris, “I will drop this line of questioning if you prefer bankrupt’s bold statement to go to the Press without explanation. He went on to say that he was simply trying to get the facts of the transaction. Questioned by Mr. Terry, bankrupt said that all financial transactions for a farming partnership in which her husband had a share were effected through her bank account. Similarly a motor-car had been purchased by the firm through her agency. Mr. Terry contended that the fruit business actually was owned by the partnership, which was therefore a party to the woman’s bankruptcy. “This is an arrangement in which this woman acts as agent for the partnership. She takes upon herself all the obligations, and the firm gets any benefits that might accrue,” was counsel’s view of the position. The meeting terminated after some discussion regarding the possibility of the car being included in the assets ot the estate,