MEETING OF CREDITORS

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 110, 10 May 1902, Page 7

MEETING OF CREDITORS

THE JOHNSTON CASE,

[' ; jgß MATTER SETTLED. ' .tins of creditors in the estate »■■£Johnston, l»te of the Opa,l J° sep ( h was continued after we went \_.fl° tel'T,L\ The motion, "That _^f_S£ b. requested to make Lofficfe JA 1% ,n Messrs Hancock and ftSkfS^o in t^l,etie Put I ,-„..nr " proposed b. Mr a* e„ WilSSkly MrSchischka, wa: JLrried. . ccicpfl tbe value of the ■Sft^tSfd Is. and •£__ by Mr ««<*• a who had the inventory. ■ KlcW' son,uJ..on said the amount was so saw & ___ Qith wh]lo JmV m ._ the.Matter. P&2 suited that as Mr Davis obviate the necesin- a demand. . riff" f m . JL ttated that the furniture * Nichof^ionged to. Messrs Hancock ta the house b*ong« tQ the yM , 5* C°" Mrs Jotoston had claimed _ur«fßaDtS t ' n fiie value of £30 or £40. Mr siture to me poslt _on to say whe>*;ias J^tified or not, but if tier the JW» difflculty about her ldenti-W^-rtLesshe claimed, Mr Davis finS 'm,. ■> 'take her word for it and fas £**,£ she had put on the furnipay't riairaed as her own. After cret»re3h_f stock Messrs Hancock and *m ft amounted to over £300 and flit's claim dni f j wafi rent the «'%« r2Sv-_ fitUl_ into this: That position resoi }m for spe . rt S of furniture the stock was <* ..the landlord's claim for rent. li* f°lrfhad a preferential claim for .Wl« ldlojf t S whole value of the stock **> eVe?»i to the Official Assignee. askedl what was the rent. Mr Rew n ea said £7 per week for hoMrffu°Sure and the amount owed IJsS °tlier claims several times "S Rew said Hancock and Co. had not said there was plenty of X _SA he was prepared to ac- *. th_ tankrupt _ statement that there lil sor £40 worth of her effects In *"*i*L He was pre Dared to pay that S7mS it was £30 or whef »___£4o. He did not wish to take ther 11 advantage. The whole transacBny .fm the " rt had been thoroughly ti?t and aW board, and he had I2r. drireit should continue so to the i H. was therefore prepared to pay en ♦-»£-or £40, which the bankrupt Sd was the value of her furniture Shis firm's net loss on the affair would "S'SiSL he thought it betto to accept Mr Davis' offer rather than Jto the other extreme and perhaps get 'Sly to Mr Rew,the Official Assignee _id that if £40 were paid by Mr Davis £ would be about £10 or £12 left after the petitioning creditors expenses were paid to divide among creditors proved to the amount of £305 4/3. Mr Mitchelson then moved. That Mr Paris' offer of £40 be accepted in full Of all demands." ; Mr Lynch seconded. i Mr Rew drew attention to the conflict | c. tils resolution with the one preceding! It. Mr Mitchelson asked that his "no" j' be recorded against the first motion. I Mr Reid asked the pnipects of getting jnore than the £40. The Official Assignee said he did not know. . _■_.•_■ Mr Mitchelson.s motion was then put and carried, Messrs Reid, Lynch. Hipkins, and Mitchelson voting for it, and Messrs Seegner and Rew against it. The Official Assignee said amounts in favour totalled £99 12/3, and those against £77 The Official Assignee then said he desired to bring a personal matter before the meeting, that being his first opportunity of doing so. At last meeting serious reflections were made on his official action and conduct. He was then absent from Auckland, and on his return sent the following letter to Messrs Hancock and Co.:— Messrs Hancock and Co., Auckland. Gentlemen-Re estate of Josephine Johnston, bankrupt.,— On my return to Auckland your letter of March 17th was placed before me, and I now desire to make a few remarks thereon personal to Myself. This bankrupt was adjudicated March Ith on a creditor's petition. She was unable to furnish the usual schedule of assets and liabilities, and, as is my practice in such circumstances, I applied to the petitioning creditors for any information they could give bearing on the bankrupt's transactions, and it was finally arrange, that Mrs Johnston should w examined before me on oath by Mr Maho-y, solicitor for the petitioning creators, on 7tb inst. The first meeting of creditors was held "3 March 11th. It was duly advertised, «nd notices were sent by post to all known creditors, yourselves included. nior to the meeting your clerk copied «rs Johnston's sworn evidence in my ofiu ?? t0 that time St had not Deen pub" mm in the newspapers). You were not Present or represented at this meeting, Web was adjourned until the ISth inst. ay letter of March 11th notified to you w resolution passed at the meeting of teat date. My presence on official business at New ''.mouth required my departure for that Place on the 14th inst., and I mentionea wis at the meeting of the 11th. lour letter of the 17th was read at the ftetmg on the following day. You compain (l) of "gross distortion," and (2) <m\ that the bankrupt is not the widow _,_._" Johnston (landlord of the Opa- ■« Hotel up to the time of his death); ' >ou omitted to point out to the creffi the difference between the various -'°«s then being discussed," etc., etc.; i'h/. 6 ,l re given t0 understand, that, Mil .? c meetin £. you expressed the f„°" thai our position was a very serine J_v and P^^icea the situation," lm-.*'•' , other adverse criticisms on asoflicial action. >3oM-. atte«? ed the first meetln^' 1. 2 L COnfllct at the seconcl meetmrS "° dolJbt have bee" avoided, lands? more Particularly to items 1. fte _JH regards No- *• I uttefly deny ■teS-_° D" When Mrs Johnston's Paper. "1 ment a PP pared in the newsthe s ,h_!. y persons approached me on hzT?™- and remarked, "That is a Nab. M ,° U have } P hand." My inW Z*.TK Z as: "lt looks had. if true; have to gay,, hear what the other side JBiS? lutio" of the 11th inst. !e'V. of \r r meetin§' had no know--e»Pa«Tf 8 Johnst on's relations with !nw a r n d . fie No' 2)' and consequenth the .«-),.1n a Position to "point out ttevario,,! °/ s the difference between Had 'hTlf ates'' <see No. 3) ktt «'s afau* status with regard to the ferent. Would hftve been very dif-

(Si-nV be,3ipnt servant. (Signed) j. LAWSONi . Official Assignee.

**** M°-8.ht " due t0 the Official r6SfJli]-on tJ ;? c cred»tors should pass a ? t!%I wHh . v effect tbat they were Se did not w i l he,action taken by him. !sfie« on th a.resolution that would ? "ot thinl t-actlon of anyone, but he a' j|t With A.. eredit°rs could find any L 5 had never h o r on' s action^ in fact, „l rd a°y fault found with U>fi&.n th *c 'I?' 1S yearS Mr v* Law™*. ™J n Auckland. >s?i£3_f the flret oc-si-t«J AsTA '.' Havln& heard rend c .. seil letter of March 24, J__f«ta wl ih tter of March 17-wWch

question his official action and conduct in connection with the bankruptcy, we desire to express our opinion that we, the

creditors, are quite satisfied with the Official Assignee's action." Mr Schischka seconded, and the motion was unanimously adopted.