W. J. SUITER AND CO'S BANKRUPTCY.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 176, 27 July 1888, Page 4

W. J. SUITER AND COS BANKRUPTCY.

ADJOURNED MEETING Of CREDITORS.

An adjourned meeting of the creditors of W. J. Suiter and Co., brewers, was held at the Official Assignee's office this afternoon at 2 o'clock, thero being present: Che debtors and their solicitor {MrT. Cotter), Messrs Button, Burton (Colonial Bank), Stevenson, Dr. ■ McArthur (solicitor for Hancock and Co.), S. Heskoth, and L. Ehrenfried. Mr Lawson presided. Mr Suiter stated that before he would submit to further examination, there were one or two important matters transpired at the last meeting he wished claared up. The first was the statement that Mr Protheroe was surprised that ho had to draw upon his priva'to estate for another £100 to provide for a payment, etc., etc. As a matter of fact, the £100 referred to was only one ot the part payments of his (Mr Protheroe s) purchase, the whole of which was his (Mr Suiter's) own money, or should havebeen,^ and ought to havo been paid at tho time oi purchate. Tho other and most important matter to him (Mr-Suiter) was the insinuation of Mr Sutton through his solicitor (Dr. McArthur) that ho had been guilty of putting "sulphate of coppsr" in his beer. He was sorry to learn that there were hundreds who wero half inclined to balievo that there might bo some truth in the assertion. And as the statement, if not proved untrue, mighb do him a great injury in after life, ho determined to have it sifted to the bottom. In consequence he took a qualified chemist to tho brewery and demanded Mr Sutton to produce the "sulphateof copper"for inspection. The result was that a jar with a gallon or two of harmless bi-sulphite of lime was produced. Bi-sulphite of lime was kepfc and used by every brewer for sweetening and cleansing sour casks, vats, coolers etc., and tho man that pronounced it " sulphate of copper" had as little idea of chemistry as he had of making mnlb, beer, or vinegar. Mr Lawson then read a lotter as follows : —" Apothecaries' Hall, Newmarket, July 26th, 1888. Mr W. J. Suiter. Dear sir,— Having at your request accompanied you to your brewery and examined the liquid which Mr C. Sutton's man pointed out to me as being the sulphate of copper found on your premises, I beg to state most emphatically thafc the liquid shown is a good sample of the so-called bisulphite of lime, used by all brewers for retarding or arresting fermentation and oxidation, and for various antiseptic purposes. As there is not the slightest resemblance between sulphate of copper and bi-sulphate of lime, I cannot possibly see how the mistake can have arisen. The sample is in my premises, and anyone desirous of examining ib can do se.—l remain, Yours respectfully, Arthur A.-Maxwell."

Mr Suiter further stated thab assertions of tho kind mentioned did not satisfy his persecutors, but that they must go further and institute proceedings against him personally (leaving his partner out of it) under the " Beer Duty Act." Ten charges wero laid, in all of which ther»»was not the slightest foundation. Mr Lawson said that the matter had been settled in Court, and it was hardly necessary to return to it now. Mr Protheroe said as the £100 had been mentioned, he would ask why it was pas»ed over to his account and that ho was allowed 5 per cent, interest till May, 1887. He deniod that it was part payment.

In answer to Dr. McArthur the debtor stated : Tho jar of bi-sulphatoof lime is tho came jar that was in the brewery when I left. I was nob aware thafc one jar was remored, and another jar pub in its place. If any duly qualified chemist were prepared to assert thafc the j*r contained sulphate ol copper, 1 would say that id had been put there. I will swear that I never used sulphate of copper.

The meeting was still proceeding when wo went to press.