DISTRICT COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXV, Issue 10235, 27 June 1883, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, 26th June, 1883. (Before His Honor Judge Hardcastle.) BANKRUPTCY OABES. .Be Edward Ancher. The debtor in person applied for his immediate dis- . charge^. .Tberejvvas no opposition. The report of the Trustee (Mr George Mo-. Caul) stated that' the debtor had given every assistance, and the creditors recommended his-;.' discbarge,', in .whioh the Trustee concurred. Order made Be Cornelius Burnett. 'The debtor in person moved for an order of immediate discharge. The report of the Trustee ( Mr Notman), stated that the whole of the assets (£230) had been handed back to the debtor, and that there was no objection or opposition to bis discharge.— ln reply to his Honor, the debtor stated that the assets, were- handed back' to him gratuitously, and without hie paying any composition. At the meeting which tianded back the assets, the only credi-tors-present represented 19b 6d and 3s respectively. — His Honor said that it no doubt seemed strange. that £230 worth of assets should be banded over without any consideration whatever, but ho saw that' the principal creditor, was of the debtor's own name, and was no doubt Satisfied.— Order made. ' Be L. L. Levy. Mr Hutchison withdrew^.the application for a warrant to bring?np the debtor's wife for examina tion. -, Me L. L. Levy. Petition under section 11 of the Act, by the Trustee, Mr W. Dakers, for directions regarding the administration of the estate on several points. — Mr Hutchison appeared for the ! Trustee/and Mr Cooke on behalf of Mr Thomas Goodison, tho trustee of the deed" of settlement, executed by the debtor in Februray,.lBBl, in favour of his wife. — The petition asked the Court to say (I) whether the estate was discharged from, any other claim by the creditors who sighed the receipt for 10s in the -pound (Mr Hutchison contended that this was not a sufficient discharge) ; (2) whether the creditors, other than those who signed the receipt, are entitled to dividends other than the 10s in the pound (Mr Hutchison argued in the affirmative on the ground that the majority of creditors could not bind the minority) ; (3) whether the trustee of the settlement was entitled to such of the property as could be identified as being included in the deed (Mr Hutchison contended that the settlement was void as against the creditors, unless the settler could prove that he was solvent when he executed it; that it was void .because the settler had become bankrupt within three years of its date ; and that it had not been properly registered under the " Chattels Securities Act," inasmuch as the affidavit verifying the signatures was not in compliance with the Act) • (4.) "Whether, after payment of oredi--tors and expenses, the Trustee should land over the residue, if any, of the ■estato itself to the Trustee of the settlement, pursuant to n, resolution rpassed by the creditors on the 3rd May,

; or whether he should realise the whole ■ estate and had over the balance, if any, : of the proceeds. — Mr Cooke contended ' that the 10s in the pound had been paid ' on the faith of a resolution that the estate was to be handed over to the debtor, and that although the receipt signed by the majority of the creditors might not amount to a legal discbarge, yet the Trustee was bound morally and I in equity, and as far only as the creditors in question were concerned, to carry out the resolution. Mr Cooke admitted that, as the affidavit was defective, he could not fet up the settlement. "With regard to the two creditor — George Boss, £47, and J. S. Cross, £8 3s 6d — they had been perfectly willing to have accepted the 10s in the pound, but, as to the former claim, the debtor positively declared that he did not owe it. Mr Cooke also contended that the debtor's wife was at any rate entitled to .£25 worth of personal property out of the effects now in the Trustee's hands. — (Upon this last point his Honor said that he was not ahed by the petition to give any directions, and it was not for the Court to suppose that the Trustee would dispose of any part of the estate to which he was not entitled).— His Honor decided that the estate was discharged from any claims on the part of the creditors who had signed the receipt for 10s, but that nonassenting creditors were not bound by the resolution of the meeting of the 3rd May. The settlement could not be , supported, as the affidavit was insufficient, and neither Mrs Levy nor the Trustee were entitled to any of the debtor'i estate by virtue of it. As to the last question, the disposition of the residue, if any, his Honor decided that the resolution of the 3rd of May was not binding on the creditors generally. The disposal of the estate, after payment of the creditors and the expenses, would follow the terms of the Act. lit Richard Menhennet. Summons to compel the attendance of the debtor's wife, Mrs Julia Menhennet, for examination by theTrustee, Mr.S. Wright.' — Mr Hutchison appeared for the Trustee. —Mrs Menhennet entered the box, but at once asked for her expenses before being sworn. — His Honor directed her to take the oath at once. — Mrs Menhennet then did so without' the slightest demur, and was examined by Mr Hutchison as to the tradesmen's bills incurred during the five months prior to her husband's insolvency, and as to other matters. She admitted that her husband was seldom m work and had no. means, and that she herself was earning very little at the time the goods were obtained. With the exception of a ponnd'of tea, which she gave to a person whose name she declined to tell, all the 1 goods were used in the house, and none of them were given away in payment of debts. She admitted also, that she had obtained cei tain goods from Mr John Anderson, a portion of which, together with the articles of furniture, she sold shortly afterwards. She could' not say what she did w,ith the proceeds. She gave an order for :.£34 16s Id worth of goods in one day to Mr Peter Bell. Both her husband and herself were earning money at the time, though she could not say how much. She was unable to say what wero her prospects of paying for any of the -goods at the time she bad them. The remainder of Mrs Menhennet's examination, which lasted some hours, was not of general interest, and related to matters which have already been published. Me George Beaven's estate. Application by Mr Charles Dawson, a creditor in the estate, for an order directing that the Trustees Messrs W. P. Currie and A. Barns, should wind up the estate at once, or be removed from office. The applicant asked also that the costs of the application should be borne by the Trustees 'personally, on the ground that they had neglected " the interests of the creditors, and had not acted in accordance with the Bankruptcy Acts. — Mr Hutchison, who appeared for the applicant, said that the estate had been in liquidation for upwards of three years; that an order was made in September, 1882, directing the Trustees to wind up the estate by a certain time, but the order, was not taken out in duo form, and lapsed accordingly ; that on that order bemg applied for the Trustees admitted that they had £44S in their hands, which, ought to have been divided; and that, by reason of long delay, a claim had been recently, sent in by a" mortgagee whose security at Marton having proved insufficient sought to recover the deficiency of about £6CO. — Albertßarns, one of the Trustees, was called by Mr Hutchison, and stated that the deed of arrangement was dated 4th March, 1880, and declared completely executed on the 25th of May- in the same year. . With regard to the debtor's property at---MaTton, mortgaged to Mr Rl W. Woon, this Trustees relinquished all right to^the equity of redemption, but witness did not think that they relinquished that right- in favour of Mr Frederick Beaven who took over the store. Mr Frederick Beaven, instead of the mortgagor, continued to pay the interest to Mr, Woon, and the latter looked to Mr Frederick Beaven for it. — Mr Hutchison said that he was instructed that Mr Frederick Beaven took over the business at Marton, and the mortgage with it, but, making default in payment of interest, he was turned out by the mortgagee. .7 Mr George Beaven's creditors were, however, led to believe that thoir Trustees had got rid of the mortgage entirely. — Mr Barns, continuing his, evidence, said that the property in Marton waß' certainly not worth more than the mortgage money when Mr ,F. Beaven took it over in 1880, .and he could not understand how anyone could have been so simple as to advance such an amount on it. The mortgage was for £1600, and when witness put the, property up at auction the highest bid was £630. Witness subsequently sold a small part of the premises for £50. Mr F. Beaven was willing in 1880 to take over the mortgage and equity of redemption. After Mr F. Beaven was turned out, he sued and recovered from , the Trustees the amount he had paid to Mr Woon for interest. Mr Woon a month or two ago preferred a claim for £1080 against the estate for deficiency of security. When witness was in Court in September, 1882, and an order was made to wind up the estate, he did not say anything about this contingent claim under the mortgage. The Trustees still had the £446 in hand, and had not distributed it because there were two other assets to come in. Witness could notsay when hereceived the£loBo claim. — Mr Hutchison called for the original claim, but it was not in Court, and Mr Betts, on behalf of the Trustees, declined to produce it. — Mr Barns said that he had informed Mr Barnicoat that the £1080 claim would be admitted by the Trustees. Had they distributed the. £446 the dividend now would not have been more than 3d in the pound, but, had it been distributed before the £1,080 claim came in, the dividend would have been very muoh larger. Of the two assets outstanding in September last, one had been received, and the other, which consisted of bills received by the Trustees for sale of the debtor's business, wsb being sued for in the Supreme Court and would probably be paid in a fow weeks. — In reply to Mr Betts, the witness said that the first asset was £100 for some property, at Turakina, and was included in the £44,6. The probable dividend now would be liom 3d to yd iu ihepound audit would bedeclaredassoon.

as the second asset was realised, although the Trustees bad boon informed that, as there might be conflicting claims sent in hereafter, they ran the risk of having to pay them out of their own pooket if they paid a final dividend now. — Mr Wi P. Currie, the 00--Truatee of the laßt witness, ooroborated his testimony in several particulars, and added that ho did not consider threejyears was an unreasonable time in which to wind up an estate of this kind. He admitted that great consideration had been shown for Mr Knox, the endorser of the bills, who j had now to pay tbem, and that some delay has occurred in consequence. Witness bad always been aware since George Beaven's insolvency that Mr Woon might have a contingent olaim under his mortgage. — J. J. Crawford was called, as a certificated accountant ; in bankruptcy, and as the representative of one of Mr George Beaven's creditors. He was satisfied that the estate was being wound up as well as possible.— Council on both sides addressed the Court. — His Honorreserved his decision until 11 o'clock mi the following morning. The Court a-lj-> lrned at 4. 25 p.m. until 11 o'clock tli*> following morning.