BLAMED HIS SON.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 133, 8 June 1927, Page 9

BLAMED HIS SON.

DEBTOR TELLS HIS STORY.

SHARE-MILKER GOES UNDER AT 62.

JT SEE.MS SARD

"It seems hard that this man should be forced into bankruptcy through the actions of his son." That was hcrw the Official Assignee, M. G. Is. Morris, summed up the case of \N illiam Alexander Burgess (62), a share-milking farmer at BucklandE Beach, who met his creditors this morning. Bankrupts total debts were £125, and his total assets £7 10/. The son was not present. Burgess, in his written statement, said that he had been employed by the Buckland Eliott Company for the part twenty years. He was the manager of their farm at Bucklands Beach, and he was given one third of the proceeds of the monthly milking return. That was his only income. For the year which ended February 28, he had averaged £17 15/. For three or four years after the war. he had to provide for seven people, and that ate up all his savings. Ho was just able to keep out of debt.

•'Kept Son For Two Yean."

Towards the end of 1923, his son, William Burgess, wanted to get married. To help his son, bankrupt arranged to pay him £3 as wages for work done on the farm. Before this arrangement was : made, bankrupt had kept his son for j two or three years after he had come ! back from the war. In May 192t>. his son i took action against him for £t>S, beim.' | the balance of £300 for wages at £3 a 1 week. Bankrupt confessed judgment for the amount, but wag unable to pay. His son issued a bankruptcy notice on him in July 192 C, but bankrupt was unable to pay the amount claimed. In September, 1926, his son took further action against bankrupt in the Magistrate's Court to attach the moneys coming to him under the share-milking contract, but the Magistrate refused to grant the attachment, as he had no other means for the support of his wife, his daughter and himself. Sincc then his wife had died. A charging order nisi was issued by the son against the returns on tho sharemilking contract in March of this year, but bankrupt took,proceedings to have this set aside because it would have left him destitute. He was unsuccessful. Bankrupt had a delicate daughter who kept house for him and who was dependent on him. He had to employ a boy on the farm, and be was given 25/ a week and keep. As a result of the charging order, he was left without means to pay expenses and keep him self and his daughter. Buckland Eliott, in order to keep the farm going, had had to advance bankrupt £50 to meet current expenses. "I attribute my bankruptcy solely to the actions takefl by my son. I would have tried to pay him, if I had had the means to do so," concluded Burgess.

"Is There Private Trouble?" Under cross-examination, 'Burgess said that his contract had been cancelled and that he was working on wages of £3 10/. Mr. Morris: I take it that there is private trouble between you and your son ? Bankrupt: Well, my son is not exactly the trouble. His wife and his mother-in-law . Mr. Morris: Oh, I don't think we need go into that. Just as the meeting was sympathising with Burgess, the son's solicitor, Mr. Gallagher, arrived. He asked a few questions. Mr. Gallagher: I understand your solicitors offered some settlement? — Yes, £20. "Where was the money coming from?" —A friend was going to lend it to me. Mr. Gallagher: What did your son do os the farm? —He used to help with the milking, but he worked only a few hours a day. Further questions were asked, and although no resolution was passed because there was no quorum, the meeting sympathised with bankrupt and hoped that his discharge would he hastened. One creditor said that he had known Rurpcs* intimatelv for years. He was nn honest and hard working man. and it was n great pity that his son had brought this trouble on his father.