THE NELSON BANKRUPTCY CASE. SUSPENSION OF THE DEBTORS DISCHARGE.

Evening Post, Volume XXI, Issue 8, 11 January 1881, Page 2

THE NELSON BANKRUPTCY CASE. SUSPENSION OF THE DEBTORS DISCHARGE.

The Supreme Court has been occupied all to-day, as well as Saturday, in hearing Wymond's case. Application was made for the bankrupt's discharge, and this was opposed on behalf of the trustees, the creditors having passed a resolution that the discharge should be suspended for three years, and they also applied that a prosecution should be directed on the ground that the debtor had. removed goods ; also, that by showing an incorrect balance-sheet he had obtained advances in cosh' and goods. The Chief Justice, in effect, said that the alleged offences, under the Fraudulent Debtors' Act, were proper matters for consideration by a jury. Regarding the discharge, he said, had there been no recommendation for delay, it was a cose wherein he would have postponed the discharge for^ a year. Ho then postponed the application for twelve months.

[UNITXD PBEBB ASSOCIATION.] Nelson, 10th January.

The grounds on which the bankrupt's discharge was opposed, and his prosecution asked for, are fully stated in the address made to the Court by Mr. Fell, who appeared for the trustees. According to the Nelson. .Mail, ho stated that Wymond had been doing a large trade in Nelson as a draper for eight or nine years. In February hist he was considerably indebted, but persuaded his creditors to render him further assistance by representations which were entirely false. In February h9 Bhowed a credit balance of £8020 15s Bd, on which advances were made to him, and large consignments of goods were forwarded to him. He carried on until October, when he went to see his creditors in Wellington. He then showed a deficiency of .£3500, bo, according to his 6wn showing, between February and October there was a difference of .£12,500. His affairs were then in such a state that his creditors could give no farther assistance, and in October he filed a deed of assign-. menb, and afterwards one of insolvency in the Supreme Court. The total debts were set down at £18,809, and the assets at £11,740. This statement proved to be quite incorrect, and tbe trustees, growing angry at the discrepancy, resolved to recommend that thedischarge should be suspended. Although he had been living in the wildest extravagance, yet this could not account for this enorm'oua deficiency, and wheh asked for an explanation he conld not give it, and so the creditors took these proceedings. In 1870 he executed s deed of settlement, and imme

diately before his bankruptcy another, which was now admitted to be valueless, and tho goods it covered wore now surrendered. After the bankruptcy Mrs. Wymond went to Christchurch, taking with her a largo amount of goods, which were seized by tho trustees, and a quantity of them, to tho value of £200, were found to be new, unworn, and unwashed. The trustees instituted a prosecution, and the case was heard before two justices, who discovered what they conceived to be a point of law — what it waß no one could understand— and the case was dismissed. The goods now remained in tho custody of the police, and the Court was now asked, first, to suspend the discharge, and next to deal with the goods under the Fraudulent Debtors' Act. It would be greatly to the satisfaction of Wymond himself and of the publio, in a place where he had been a largo trader, if he were held blameless and proved innocent of the grave charges made against him, which was prevented by the complete fiasco in the Mogiatrate's Court. His innocence had not yet been established, and he (Mr. Fell) would ask the Court to order proceedings to be instituted against him. In the course of his examination, the debtor said — " In January, 1880, 1 went to Melbourne, and took a balance-sheet made up from the books, showing a balance of £9000. My principal creditors in Melbourne were Patterson, Lang, and Bruce. I owed them between £3000 and £4000. Southern, their trustee, telegraphed to me from Melbourne, telling me to keep the best order I could for him. I ordered to the extent of about £2000. Cash advances wero made to me by Patterson and Lang to tho extent of about £1000. That was at tho time of my visit to Melbourne. Southern took an order from me just before my insolvency. I have paid tho same firm about £500 a month for ten years. They Started mo in business, and always trusted me. Five or six months ago I was sorved with a writ by Sargood. Some of my creditors supplied me with goods after my February, 1880, balance-sheet. I got them from Thompson & Shannon, who are my second largest creditors. I got goods from Cock & Co. a short time from my insolvency. I once owed N. Edwards & Co. £6000. I got goods from Thompson & Shannon a wok or two boforo my failure, and promised to pay them cash, but I conld not, as Southern took the whole of my takinga for a fortnight. Southern promised if I paid that money and would assign to him that he would sell back the estate to me. Under that understanding, Mr. Clarkson gave him the money. In February I showed a balance of about £9000. In Ootober, upon stock-taking, I found I was to the bad to the extent of £3562. I have no reason to suppose that the February, 1880, statement was incorrect. In answer to further questions, witness Btated that his drawings from the business for household, private, and travelling expenses were £34 per week.