HAMILTON BANKRUPTCY

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 253, 16 January 1928, Page 11

HAMILTON BANKRUPTCY

WAS HE AN OPTIMIST? DISCHARGE DELAYED (From Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, To-day. There were seven creditors present when Charles Sydney Coombea, seedsman, Frankton, was examined in bankruptcy to-day. Bankrupt showed a deficiency of £657 11s 2d. His business had never been prosperous, but. he carried on in hopes it would establish itself. He suffered with ill-health and had to support a wife and two children. He never realised he was insolvent till last July. His mother-in-law had advanced him £434 in all, mainly to pay Instalments on the house. Several creditors alleged bankrupt misled them concerning his position when he endeavoured to obtain goods. The Official Assignee: Have you been in the habit of telling creditors you expected financial relief from your mother-in-law? Bankrupt: Not in the habit of doing so. I might have mentioned it to one or two. The Official Assignee: You have carried on the business too long. You had no right to carry on after December, 1926, and your action is worthy of the greatest condemnation. I shall have to bring that forward when you come up for your discharge. Another creditor alleged that bankrupt represented to him that he expected money from Auckland. The Official Assignee: It appears you have been telling all your creditors a similar story. We must not overlook the fact that although the bankrupt experienced two bad seasons he carried on for three and a-half years. He should have realised his position long before that. I think he has brought himself very close to the penal provisions of the Act. Though it is not a case for the prosecution of the creditor, I absolutely oppose his discharge. Bankrupt’s brother-in-law described him as “an optimist of the first water.” He was one of those men who should never be allowed to enter into business. It was apparent, however, he did not realise his position until three months ago: A resolution that the official assignee be recommended to oppose bankrupt’s discharge for two years was carried, but the creditors were not unanimous.