WOMAN BANKRUPT

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 November 1929, Page 3

WOMAN BANKRUPT

REEFTON HOTEL DEAL.

A transaction in connection v with Farrell’s Hotel, Reefton,.was a prominent feature of the discussion concerning the affairs of Mrs Martha Jane Beardsley, a meeting of whose creditors was held at Christchurch on Monday, the Acting-Official Assignee , (Mr A. Ross) presiding. Mr A. C. Cottrell represented the bankrupt; Mr L. A. Dougall represented Messrs T. H. Green and Co., and Mr W. R. Lascelles the petitioning creditor, Mrs A. Farrell, the amount of claim being £ll4. The total due to unsecured creditors was £BO5/2/11; secured creditors, £2737/19/4, less estimated value of securities (£2662/10/-), leaving a deficiency of £75/9/4. Total debts, £BBO/12/3, with assets, nil. The bankrupt’s statement set out that some years ago she was carrying on a storekeeping business in a shop in Clarence road. Many of the debts in her statement of unsecured creditors were incurred while in this business, as it gradually drifted back. She tried other things to improve her position. About three years ago she went into partnership with Walter Rogers and Arthur Rogers, who were to sell tea and drapery in the country, but they did not make a success of it and in the end bankrupt lost about £2OO over the venture. Butterworth’s account was still unpaid. Bankrupt then entered into a contract with Mrs A. Farrell, of Reefton, to take over Farrell’s Hotel, in exchange for two cottages in Christchurch owned by bankrupt. She could not go into the hotel owing to Mr Beardsley not being well enough to hold the license. She sold her interest in the hotel to'Mr Carmichael at the price she gave for it. She took a property in Victoria Street by way of exchange, and Mr Carmichael gave her a mortgage for the balance of equities for £230 and interest. Mr Carmichael did not meet his engagements to Mrs Farrell and bankrupt, alleging that Mrs Farrell had misrepresented the property to him. He said that the beer draught was only one-fourth of what Mrs Farrell represented it to be. Early in the present year Mrs Farrell sued bankrupt in the Magistrate’s Court for payment Mr Carmichael should have made on the hotel. Bankrupt could get nothing from Mr Carmichael, and so could not meet Mrs Farrell’s demands. Finally, Mrs Farrell mad® Mrs Beardsley a bankrupt. Carmichael still owed bankrupt £230 and interest under the mortgage of Farrell’s Hotel. She was informed that it was of no value. Replying to Mr Lascelles, the bankrupt said that a property in Jerrold street was owned in partnership with her son. Two or three months after she sold the Reefton hotel, she knew that Carmichael .would not fulfil his part, but it was never explained to her that she was liable. Why did you sell your business to your husband?—To prevent the creditors taking my stock and my living, and Mr Beardsley’s money was given to the creditors.

So that you sold to evade your creditors?—No; not to evade my creditors. The money I received was paid to my creditors. How much did you receive from your husband? —About £2OO. What creditors got the £2OO? — Henderson and Co. got £81; Mr H. S. Williams (Butterworth and Co.) got some of his account. Mr Williams: About £lO. Bankrupt: Oh, more than that. Bing, Harris, and Co. got £B7. Mr Williams: I think you paid Bing; Harris, and Co. £3o.—they got judgment for that amount. Bankrupt: I cannot say from memory. I divided the residue of the moneys amongst other creditors, and reduced my liability. Further, to Mr Lascelles, bankrupt said that her reason for selling to her husband was that she wanted to keep going and pay her creditors, and if her living was taken from her, she would not have been able to do anything. Mr Williams: Was not the reason that I had put the bailiff in? , Bankrupt: The business .had been sold before; I had to do it to protect myself. To Mi’ Cottrell bankrupt said that she got full value for the stock she sold, and she dispensed the money to prevent being pressed by her creditors.

Referring to the re-sale of the Reefton Hotel, Mr Cottrell said that Mrs Beardsley supposed that she was clear of the whole management and Carmichael went into possession and became liable to Mrs Farrell. Bankrupt thought that she was clear of the transaction, except as to clearing up the interest on the second mortgage. To Mr Cottrell bankrupt replied that if she had not been pressed in respect of the liability in connexion with the Reefton hotel, she could have carried on and paid 20s in the £.

Replying to Mr Dougall, bankrupt said that she had had an offer from a Dunedin man of another hotel where the takings were £7O a week; he was prepared to let her have the hotel and £5OO in cash, in exchange for her equities in-the Clarence road and Victoria street properties. Mr P. L. Orr, representing the New Zealand Coffee and Since Company, asked bankrupt what her idea was in using £2OO received for the Clarence road stock, to pay off Nichols’s second mortgage, while the people who supplied her with goods were left? Bankrupt: I did it to save the property. Mr Orr: In other words you speculated with your creditors’ money and you came a cropper. The whole trouble was greed. You were running round speculating and not using any sense.

Bankrupt was questioned at some length about the hotel transaction, and regarding her partnership with her son in the Jerrold street property. The Acting-Official Assignee 1 said that the Jerrold street property partnership required to be investigated as he thought that bankrupt possessed an equity in it. Ultimately it was decided to leave the estate in the hands of the Official Assignee for investigation and report.