The Richmond Bankruptcy.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7911, 29 August 1905, Page 2

The Richmond Bankruptcy.

Mr Edgar Watt's Eridence. At lite office of the Deputy Official Assigifee on Monday morning, further evidence was given by Mr lidgar Watt, and also by Mr Lennon, with ri'eieiice to the property transactions with Mr F. W. Kichmoml, bankrupt. Mr Kerr appeared as solicitor lor the 0.0.A., who presided ; Mr I'iizlierbert on behalf of Mr Watt, and Mr It. C. Hughes for Mr Darling and others. Mr Watt desired to secure the presence of Mr Uovett, on the ground ihai lie had in-.de allegations against him at the nutting of creditors, but in reply to a message sent, Mr Govitl s&id that he did not desire to be present, but would attend if the D.O.A. paid him the usual fee.

Ldgar ttatt, continuing his evidence from Thursday last, stated that about six weeks before the bankruptcy Richmond revoked the power of attorney previously granted. Thcrelore witness had his hands tied, and could not raise money on the estate. Witness considered £tfo,ooo a fair value 'or the Marahau if properly pushed ; he believed Heid could get this sum. 'lhe partnership had had till August 7, to complete the MaraIhau purchase. Witness did not admit that he had altogether failed to sell the property. Property always took time to dispose of. It was not a fact that he '"threw up the sponge " in connection with the deal six weeks before the bankruptcy. Ali along lie had been trying to make sales, as he had really no power t,■ . raise money by other means when the power of attorney was revoked. As a matter of fact within, a fortnight oi the 'bankruptcy Richmond had refused to allow i witness authority to raise a mortgage. The parties were not revoking in concert, far from it. in selling a certain block of land for £3001) the advice of others was accepted as against that of witness. Witness knew the Pharazyn trustees had been trying some years before to sell the estate for £48,000, but Darling was altogether wrong in his belief that the Marahau could last year be purchased for £50,000. Witness went twice over the Island to mtciview the trustees, and (hey would not entertain any oiler of It's. than £OO,OOO. The property for which witness had paid the "absurdly high price" of £OO,OOO had been sold at a profit. Mr Reid was too smart a man to take over a bad ' spec. ' The partnership should have made £OOOO ha(l the Mere Mere exchange been completed by them Witness understood that it had ' been valued by Messrs Harry Good xfl d Walter Troung at £14,500, but that s fur mortgage purposes. Witness ■ •sscrted that he could sell the Merc -lue for i.juoo above the figure mention d. T.e equitable iutoic.ft o. . eie Meie should have been placed in he hands- of'.** d.O.A. on Aug. .7. , i'r Kcir: You are treating as li-.lU-Hl assets what you only held on thud or fourth mortgage ? Witness : Only lirst mortgage. Mr ko'-r : You were obliged 4f;y rai.'e .1 Mere Mere a mortgage of £700), ana a second mortgage of £2OOO ? w ' ucess: Wu °nl.v wanted £BOOO. could have Completed the transaction ourselves with this amount htilj you retired a second mortr to sveure extra lees. Expenditure £9OOO ' >e inCuriied " IV(,lvi ng ovtT

Witness: Hie txtm £11)00 is stil] uUo to the creditors. It was desirable to raise £9OOO, but if only £BOOO could be secured it would have seen the tiling- through. We coUlfi have held on till « sale w a s effected. 1 hwo weeks before the bankruptcy Ijennon «n;l I offered Richmond- our share so as to help him thijugh, on condition that he did not file, and ndw&'d hiin to hang on till the spring.

Witness, i n reply 4o Mr Kerr. maintained that his statement. Coul',l in n 0 way he construed to show that hj« had practically abandoned the idea of completing' the Mar a hau purchase. Air Kerr remarked that it was not until witness failed that Pope nrJtl Darling stepped into tho breach. Witness : I did not expect to sell in one w<ek. 'lf i held on for two years it would not have proved the property to be b,ad value. Mr Kerr : It shows you wero out in your calculations.

Mr Kerr : How could Richmond h:in)s on till the spriag when he wjas harassed by cixijditors, iiiichidiing l i«sponsibility for your debts ? Witness : He never should have filed on toe debts which ha guaranteed for me.

Mr Kerr : Since the beginning ol loot Richmond has advanced you in hard cash £O7l 12s 3d, and taken upon himself liabilities in respect of bankruptcy petitions an'd promissory notes to the extent of £5lB 15s, making a total of £1520 V Witness : Yes, abput that.. That refresents- {t}x>u,fc two-thirds of whlvt ho holds in 'trust aSI niy share of tho profits. To Mr Richmond : Yes, my evidence is based on the fact, thait if we raised £BOOO on Mere Mere we could have completed the deal. Mr Richmond : You call it a fact ; 1 call it an assumption. Proceeding, he questioned witness in detail as to wh.it their liabilities were to complete the deal. Witness, in his answer, pointed out that several items could have l«vn held over, such ns for surveys, etc. Mr Kerr said that the bankrupt could not put off tlieso liabilities indefinitely.

Statement by Mr Lennoo. Mr Lennon,,M!t his own requeM, also gave evidence. lie corroborated Waft's evidence that th-i Marahau CoiiJd not he purchased for less than £1)0,000. Ifo had seep both Me.srs Steadman and Izard, whp said thc.t would not take a penny less. Witness wijvt. on to explain the position iinmodiat 'l.v lml'oi'e the assignme.n. Pope eame to witness and said li had interviewed Mr Anderson, v.itisuggested tlit.it Witness ar.d Richmond should assign their interest in thu two properties tr> -them. Its,cmed 'to their ndvisi-rs to be the last resource. Witness told Rioamoiiil it was his plain duty to get the title in order to show s, >me tangible asset. Mr <!oVett would not hear of putting o(T the Itaikruptey. Mr Ki;fr : You could not go op (vjWluut casji ? Mr Matt; We could go on on my borrowing- We could have the money by giving a 'bonus of £40(1. Mr Lcnnoii, continuing, said that the meeting took placp on the n',M of July 27, when Richmond and he decided on (he iissipjiment. They did apt go parefiilly enough ifi'to tilie un-tt, localise they made - a nris'tiike, as the previous evidence "in regard to the £l2(X> h'atl showp. Witness told Pope. Andeiiion, amj Kjchinond that the tpansactiop waij in tho natlife of ft pfefeieiipo paynuint. Mr Anderson, howpver, said that, in an action under pressure 'the agreement would hold. Witness was of a different opinion, and signed trie assignment. on the distinct undcnrtamli that in his opinion it would not hold good. Witness had not then understood 'that the aSsigttees Could, ! , sell tho property f,n £12,000. His idea .wan to get 1x1:1 of' some sort i of asset. |° This closed the examination. J