DEFIANT BANKRUPT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 677, 31 May 1929, Page 11

DEFIANT BANKRUPT

IGNORED THE ASSIGNEE

JUDGE’S SHARP COMMENT

“You had better let your client know that if he does not comply fully with the requirements of the official assignee in seven days. I will have no hesitation in exercising my powers and sending him to gaol.”

QOMMENTING on bankrupt’s “del: ant attitude” toward the official assignee, Mr. Justice Herdman con-

cluded bis comment on the conduct of Ambrose Lewis, formerly Diamond Taxis proprietor, against whom a summons for committal to gaol was heard in the Supreme Court today. Representing the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Hubble said that the official assignee had experienced so much trouble in other bankruptcies that he had been driven to take the present course against Lewis. The bankruptcy was a bad one. the liabilities proved amounting to £1,600 and the assets only realised £l2. Among the assets given by bankrupt to the assignee were book debts totalling £3OO, but the assignee had been unable to obtain any particulars from Lewis. Inquiry by the assignee through a debt collecting agency showed that people whose names figured in the book debts were of unknown address, or disputed the liabilities.

Nlimerous letters had been written to Lewis for three months after the bankruptcy, but since the first meeting of creditors bankrupt had not seen fit to answer any of the communications, attend the assignee’s office, or reply to telephone messages. Just before the present proceedings were initiated, he had received from bankrupt an alleged balance sheet which was of no use whatever. However, the bankrupt had now asked for a further 10 days, in which he had promised to supply the full details required. If he did not comply in that time he would proceed on the summons.

Admitting the facts were substantially correct, Mr. Schramm declared that bankrupt’s books had been in the hands of a brother, who had disappeared from Auckland, and who had let the creditors in for some money. Bankrupt’s books had disappeared, too. The information thus far given to the assignee was very fragmentary, and counsel assured' the court that all details would be supplied. “I can’t understand why this man, who was made bankrupt in February, should take up this defiant attitude to the assignee,” remarked his Honour in allowing seven days to defendant to comply with the assignee’s demands.