BAKRUPTCY.

Waikato Times, Volume XII, Issue 973, 17 September 1878, Page 2

BAKRUPTCY.

"" IN WE EDWARD* MESSAGE. " = A meeting of Mie creditors m the estate of Ed watd Message, was held yesterday m the Courthouse. Mr I. R. Vialou ' was' appointed, chairman. Mr Laishley, (Auckland), appeared for certain of the creditors, and Mr W. M. Hay, for the bankrupt. The first proof put m, was that of Messrs. E. and H. Isaacs. Mr Hay objected to the proof, as not stating particulars. ' : Mr Laishley argued that it was sufficient that the creditor had sworu to the amount as due to him, and that it was for the trustee afterwards, to challenge the claim if he thought fit. Other proofs were challenged by bankrupt's solicitor. The Chairman ruled that the proof be received. Mr Hay declined to receive the Chairman's ruling m the case. The Act. he raaintaned, provided that the proofs of debt could only be admitted by the trustee (Mr G. Edgecumbe), who was the only judge of such matter. The following creditors, the several proofs having been put m and proved, wern either present or represented at the meeting : I. JR. Vialou, E. and H. Isaacs, Bank of New Zealand, J. S. Hawkins, J. JBlakey, Waikato Steam Navigation Company, Porter and Co., Craig, John Knox, J. K. MacdonalJ, and S. Davis. Mr Laishley asked the Chairman, on behalf of several df- the Auckland creditors (who were dissatisfied with the bankrupt's particulars), to re-examine him under the 49 th section of the Act. He appeared with that object The trustee stated he had no report to lay before the meeting. Mr Laishley asked that the bankrupt's statement be taken on oath, as it was quite possible ulterior proceedings might be taken. Bankrdpb was then sworn, and said : I have been through the Bankruptcy Court before, having made a detd of assignment. This was about four yeara ago ; the deed pzrported that I should pay 5a m the £. My liabilities when I failed m April last . were about £700. I believe all the items m my. schedule are correct with the exception of Blakey's. Ido not know that there is any incorrectness m the statement of Craig's account. 1 deny that I owe Hawkins £127. The sum of £87 on ray schedule is the correct sum. The discrepancy appearing between debt arid the amount scheduled for is explainable as being a mixei debt due to Mr Vialou. The difference of Mr Potter's debt that between £6 scheduled and £17 sworn to by Mr Potter is an overcharge. I only owe J. K. McDonald £1 11s 6d, not £6 19s 2d, as sworn to by him. I am not aware that there is a deficiency ia my estate of 16s m the £, assuming that the assets realise all expected of them. I cannot account for the deficiency between my assets and my liabilities. I had books and a desk burned m the fire. I cannot tell how, long these deficiencies were accumulating. When I undertook the bank job at Te Awamutu, m August, 1870, I was solvent. I had then about £72. The whole of my present liabihics have not been incurred m carrying out the bank contract, but m carrying out four contracts, namely, Bank at Te Awamutu, Post Office, Cambridge, and Bank and Whyce's Buildings, Hamilton. The money I have received for these jobs, I paid into the B »nk ot New Zealand. My wife made over an allotment to the bank, m December, for an advance of money, which I required to pay wageß with. It was not made over to cover a past debt. I incurred some of the liabilities up to within a week of becoming insolvent. I received £80 from Mr Hawkins before I declared myself insolvent, which I paid into the bank. I can ; not say how long previously. I cannot say where I got the £75 paid by me into the bank on the 23rd April. 1 think I got it from Hawkins. Could not say whether I got this money within a fortnight of failing. When 1 got this money from Hawkins I told him I was thoroughly solvent, and promised to return it m a month. I first kuew 1 was insolvent when the question of extras was entertained, when I returned from Auckland. When I returned from Auckland the cheque from Hawkins I paid into the old bank premises. When I came back from Auckland the last time and learned I was insolvent the bank business was being conducted m the new premises I don't know what amount of insurauce I received from the Insurance Company t fter the fire. I think I got the benefit of about .£550 from the Insurance Companies : £400 from one office and ,£l5O from another. I belie/c the workmen were saii-fied with the tools they got as their share of the insurance money. I conld not pay m money because other people kept it. Hawkins received £400 of the insa ranee money.. Efarvey received compensation for the loss of his tools. Haivey's estate may have a claim on me. The tools given to

the workmen, were bought from Messrs. Porter, and M essrß O ruckBhank : mid Miller. I llfcVer reCei d any of the insurance money exoerik , the money I brought up from Hawkp ins, and paid into the bank. TlisM h °t°£Hn d fk COUl #^ 8 a *#rf ot £80, 1 know noT|hii|pof. WOaM m*de them out. jfcannll|sai whether a debu of £34;;fbw diiw te If is paid of this £B(£*lt i s &le»il# mate asset. I don't think it could be recovered. , J The" meeting th'tfrl "adjournedforan hour. On resuming, Mr Hay put m several fresh proxies. Mr Laishley objected to thfcir " being received 'at this stage of . the I*'1 *' proceedings. * -••• Mr Hay contended that a creditor, ana consequently a proxy, could put m its appearance at any period of the meeting., „, Examination of Bankrupt continued—l do not admit that Craig has any claim on the Insurance Company, through me, for material or tools lost m the fire. Some of Craigs goods were damaged at '"the fire, and taken away. The workmen were informed by me that their tools were insured, and had, there-, fore a claim on me. I made a claim for Craig's tools. I dou't know what the insurance paid for. Mr L .ishley stated that the trustee informed him that the book assets were useless, not to be collected. Bankrupt : I cannot tell how the book debts are made up. , The Value of the furniture, set down as an asset of .£3O, is so much less the £25 worth allowed me by the Act; 'The asset, of £6 for stone steps has since realised 12s. My harmonium was sold to Mr Cox six weeks or two months before I failed. Mr Cox'was not pressing me for money. I sold a sewing machine for : £s 10s four months before I failed. I did not dispose of any wax flowors. I did not send goods away m » cart. I don't know what amount of tools either Carter, Evans, or Harvey had to replace, those lost m the fire. I don't know how much I applied for from, the Insurance Company for these tools. I don't know what I claimed from the insurance for tlie tnenj or what I claimed for myself. I could not say what was my financial position at the time I took the Hamilton Bank contract. To Mr Hay: Hawkins was nay agent m Auckland. I got a large amount of material from him. ■ His terms were 5 per cent; on what he bought for me, but it was understood that wh«n he got 2|- per cent! he was only to change me the saite. He procured oie over ,£2OOO worth of materials. , In January he gave me two cheques. He said he got ,£2o^ from the Insurance Company, and when Mr Mabin came to Auckland he was to get *he other £200. 1 asked him for money. He said he would give me two cheques for £50 each, and I should give him my cheque for £25. The entry mmv bank book of 18th January, £99 I7s 6d, is that of the two cheques, less 2s 6d exchange. I have received no money from Hawkins since then. I attribute my insolvency principally to the building of the bank at Hamilton, m consequence of the detailed drawings being m excess of what I understood The bank contract at Te Awamutu owed me some £300 when 1 commenced the Hatnil tou Bank, also some £600 for the Cambridge Post Office. I don't think I owed the bank anything like that amount at that time. 'Che debit balance struck m the bank book at the end of March, ot ,£469, is incorrect. I had' then ,£9OO owing to me. I owed Hawkins about £150. Mr Laisbley abated he appeared for the Auckland creditors who considbred they had been so used that they considered it necessary to have the affair re-opened. He coatcnled that the bankrupt h*d shown snch an utter recklessness and disregard of the interests of the creditors that he did not deserve his discharge His assets were found te be unavailable. and his statement of liabilities m no instance to accord with the proved debts of the creditors. Tbe trustee had informed him that he did not believe th' y would be £50 assets realised out of the £195 set doun m the schedule. Mr Imshley, as a proxy of Messrs Porter & Go. moved that the discharge of the bankrupt be suspended for 3 years from that day. Seconded by. Mr Craig. Mr Hay aB ; representing Mr McDonald, seconded by the proxy of Mr S. Davis moved the discharge be suspended for three months. He thought there had been great recklessness on the part of some of cbe creditors. He believed the monoy had-b)en simply muddled away and that bankrupt hid been too much m the hands of other people. The person named Hawkins ought to have been here to have been examined. The recklessness of the creditorj was some excuse for the bankrupt. Mr Kn ox thought that something was due to the Auckland met chants carrying ou business here, aa<i to the workmen who had lost by the fire. It was due to Hamilton that the crelitors here should mark their displeasure of such conduct as the baukriiptsandhe would mo7e that the period of suspense of discharge be 12 months as q«ite severe enough upon the debtor, and still vindicating the commercial morality of the district. This amendment was not seconded. On the voting for the amendment, the first vote offered was that of Messrs E. and H. Isaacs. Mr Hay entered a formal objection that the debt bad not been legally proved. For the amendment, 9, for the original resolution, 7. The discharge of the bankrupt was therefore ordered to be withheld for 3 months.