DISCHARGE FROM BANKRUPTCY

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29153, 14 March 1960, Page 7

DISCHARGE FROM BANKRUPTCY

Court Refuses Application

(New Zealand Press Association) NELSON, March 13.

An application for discharge from bankruptcy by Windsor Sedgemore Howson, a butcher, formerly of Nelson and now of Invercargill, was dismissed by Mr Justice McCarthy in a reserved decision in the Supreme Court at Nelson.

“The application is actively opposed by three creditors only out of 100, though the general body of creditors passed on February 6, 1957, a resolution instructing the Official Assignee to oppose any application for discharge within a period of five years,” the judgment said. "The Assignee now opposes on the grounds that the conduct of the bankrupt before bankruptcy showed a careless disregard for the interests of his creditors and that there is a danger of such conduct being repeated if the application for discharge is granted,” said the judgment. "The report of the Assignee shows that Howson was adjudicated on his own petition in October, 1956. He had been engaged in an extensive butchery business in the Nelson province and his liabilities were, for an individual, extremely large. His business was carried on by the Assignee for some time with a small loss and then disposed at. In the final result, his unsecured creditors received a dividend of 7s 113-16 d in the £, the total deficiency reaching the huge figure of £23,749.” His Honour said Howson’s trading activities before his bankruptcy revealed an instability and a disregard of the money of others which made him a danger to the commercial community. "I have little doubt that if he were to secure his discharge now, he would again plunge into business promotion with avidity and lack of discretion. Already he has .acquired ’two retail butchery shops in Southland. These he runs in his wife’s name. To achieve this he has borrowed the necessary finance. He makes no offer of future payments to, his creditors. “I think it is contrary to the public interest that Howson should be given his discharge at this time. After a further lapse of time, the matter can be reconsidered and then a different view may be taken,” he said.