THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1102, 15 April 1911, Page 3

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY.

Sir,—The report aiinearing in your issue of April 6 regarding the adverse criticism by Mr. Townsend ns to certain matters in the bankrupt estate of Mrs. Ritson discloses a. most extraordinary state of affairs, and your sub-loader is singularly apropos as showing (he view of the mercantile community (awards this Department. , It is a well-known fact (hat many estates are being placed in private hands to wind up because creditors find that the work can be done more expeditiously and that "scenes" that sometimes take nlaco at meetings of creditors held before the present Official Assignee are evaded. It is high time the Government realised this and handed over the wiml-ing-up of bankruptcy estates to officers in the Public Trustee's oflicc. This has been done in Duncdin and Greymouth, and why not in Wellington?

Referring to bankruptcy matters- reminds me that last'session of Parliament a Jlr. John Morris Schapiro presented a petition complaining that Mr. Simpson, the Official Assignee, had practically accused him of theft. After the Public Petitions Committee had carefully considered tho petition, it presented to tho House one of the strongest ionorts'adverse to a Government official that I suppose has ever been presented. It appeared in (he local nress at tho time, and 1 should like to quote- it:—

"That this committeo is of opinion, on the evidence, before it, that (lie following statements:—'That the bankrupt (John Morris Schapiro) bad Riven pecurity over his plant to a Miss Sanderson, and had sold it (the plant) and retained tho proceeds,' and further, 'that tho bankrupt had evidently disposed of the • plant mortgaged to her (Miss Sanderson) and hud apparently kept the proceeds,' made by Mr. A. Simpson—the Official. Assignee —to his Honour the Chief Justice, in the Bankruptcy Court on October 8, 1010, in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings of one John Morris Schapiro, ami which appeared in tho 'New Zealand Times' of October 10, 1910, are. incorrect, and that, in tho opinion, of this committee, tho Government should call unon tho Official Assignee to withdraw such statements through the columns of the papers published in Wellington, in which tho .offensive statements appeared."

Evidently the committee considered that the charges were wholly unfounded, and did not hesitate in tho interests of justice and tho protection of a foreigner to recommend thnt ih» Official Assignee should be called on to make a public retraction through the. columns of the public press of the injury that he had done Jlr. Schapiro by his. public, utterances. , What, however, has been done in this matter! . Nothing, so far as, I learn. There certainly has been no public retraction. Surely if a committee devoto timo and consideration to a petition and report to tho House in adverse terms, it. is the duty of the Government to see (has the strong recommendation—almost amounting to a, demand—should be carried out whether it humiliates an official or not. If the recommendation of. a committee,is to be ignored—especially when it. refers to an act "of injustice-that'has been done—what use. is there in a. body of men sitting for hours, taking evidence, then deliberating and renorting to tho Houseif the report is to have no effect? It is simply-a'huge, wa.sto of iime. It is to bo hoped that Mr. F. M.-.'B. Fisher. M.P., the presenter of the petition, will brins tho matter before the House ami insist upon knowing why. justice has not been done Mr. Schaniro, and why the report of the committee has been treated with contempt.—l nm, etc., MERCHANT. Palmerston North, ' April 8, 1911. FARMERS' REPRESENTATIVE IN LONDON. Sir,—l have noted carefully the reports of the meetings held by Mr. Lysnar, and particularly the or.c held at Masterton. It strikes on<s as peculiar that Mr. Foster should be joining issue with tho farmers. His company, if I am rightly,informed, has a representative at itomo now. It is a fact that tho freezing com-, panics have held two conferences, and a I motion was carried at tho last meeting, when only fivo works were represented out of ten orelcvcn to appoint aman to represent them in London, and, further, to ofi'cr the. position to a London man. Perhaps the outcome of the co-operation of Mr. Foster with the producers will result in the same man being appointed to represent both freezing works and farmers. As those works, excepting tho purely fanners' ones, must have interests opposed, if anything. *to tho farmers, I consider it would be a great mistake to have the same man acting for both. Let each party send their own man, and instruct him to co-operate with the other whenover possible in the direction of improving the trade and prospects, and removing any abuses, etc. There is ample workto be done in this matter, especially now that aew docks are to be built. Can the farmers not find a man in (he-Dominion with practical experience in the trade on whom they can rely? It. seems absurd to think that we should have to get the services of a London man.—l am, etc., INTERESTED. fAn independent representative has now neon appointed—namely, Mr. Shelton, of Gisborne.l THE BOOKMAKER AND THE LAW. Sir,—There are no doubt many people in our Dominion who, if asked whether ths bookmaker still- flourishes in New Zealand, would proudly say that "Job "Ward's Government" wiped them all out last session of Parliament, and in the ■reply would at once demonstrate to anyone having tho smallest knowledge of the facts, that those who expressed such opinions aro either blind or as indifferent to tho moral welfare of the younger generation as tho Government was when it framed the abortive measure of last session, which was supposed to sound the death-knell of the bookmaker. As a matter of fact it- has' not, and, presumably, never was intended to do anything of llic kind. The bookmaker has been banished from tho racecourses,- and the tote, and in-cid-ntally the Government, has derived a considerable pecuniary gain, thereby. But, sir,' if it was tho earnest intention of the Government to put down tho evils of gambling referred to by, Mr. Justice Chapman at Auckland, whose remarks gave riso to the demand for tho exit of the bookmaker, if the supporters of tho Bill were sincere in what they professed to accomplish, why is it that firms of well-known bookmakers at .Wellington are distributing private codes throughout the Dominion, and • arc carrying on their businesses as heretofore? Why does not tho Postmaster-General exercise hi 9 powers and prohibit telegrams having reference to betting transactions, whether in code or not. The writer knows of boys in their teeiis who coolly walk into telegraph offices and.'dispatch telegrams to well-known turf agents without-any pretence of disguising , the matter by means of a code, If there is any genuine desire on the part of the Government and the authorities to suppress gambling, why: is

this kind of thine allowed to go on? Aro wo to suppose (hat as long as the bookmaker is not on tlio racecourse 'where ho can diminish (ho totalisator takings his operations are winked nt, and his existence denied! . The police,, 100, centres might take a much more lively interest in keepers of billiard saloons and other gentlemen who aro adding to (heir hanking accounts or someone eks's by means of the gentle art of laying (010 odds.—l am, eld SEARCHLIGHT.