ESTATE OF DR. SERPELL

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 12 March 1917, Page 4

ESTATE OF DR. SERPELL

The meeting called by the Deputy Official Assignee (Mr. Say well) to consider the Crown Solicitor’s opinion in relation to the alleged partnership between Dr. Serpell and Dr. Boyd, was held on Monday last. Th e creditors present were Messrs McKay, Turnbull, Georgetti, Tompkins, Smith, Max Graham and Dr. Boyd. Mr. Gascoigne represented Dr. Serpell and Mr. Davies, of Taihape, appeared for Dr. Boyd. Mr. Saywell read the Crown Solicitor’s opinion, which was given at seme length. After dealing extensively with an agreement or deed of partnership, which existed between Dr. Serpell and Dr. Boyd, and quotingsome portions of the statutes relating to partnerships as referred to the case being considered the Crown Solicitor expressed the opinion that the document in existence did create a partnership and therefore rendered Dr. B'oyd liable for all partnership debts. Dr. Boyd was therefore entitled to the partnership assets; but as the estate and the circumstances surrounding it were of a complicated character the Deputy Official Assignee made the suggestion that the adjustment of it be left to a conference between Dr. Boyd and himself. Mr. Davies drew attention to the fact that Dr. Boyd had claims on the estate which, when settled, left little if any balance to be divided among the creditors.

Mr. Tompkins was informed that Dr. Boyd was entitled to the book debts as they wer e considered partnership accounts. Mr. Georgetti considered the new arrangements left the creditors much in the same position as they were before. , His debt was a personal one, and h e was in consequence likely to be left out in the cold.

Mr. Davies stated that owing to the circumstances of Dr. Boyd’s claim, there was not likely to be any money available from him.

It was moved and carried that the Deputy Official Assignee be empowered to arrange a compromise with Dr. Boyd.

Mr. Georgetti placed befor e the Official Assignee a letter from Sir James Allen. This gave the information that 5/6 per day of Dr Serpell’s salary was allocated to creditors and 8/6 to a personal friend. He questioned the fairness of this. Mr. Gascoigne explained that the friend referred to was acting for Mrs. Serpell. He (Mr. Gascoigne) -had refused to receive the amount on her behalf and a friend of Dr. Serpell’s volunteereu to receive the amount on Mrs. Serpell’s account. The friend in question received no benefit and his action was purely of a friendly and well-meaning character.