A BANKRUTCY MATTER

Gisborne Times, Volume LX, Issue 9728, 11 June 1924, Page 5

A BANKRUTCY MATTER

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—As one of those present at the bankruptcy meeting referred to in your leading article of yesterday’s date, I must express my surprise at seeing such prominence given to the incident referred to in your article. The facts are these:— •Y motion was moved on behalf of the Auckland creditors suggesting that the fees of their accountant m connection with his visit from Auckland to Gisborne should be paid out of tlie estate. The fees would naturally bo substantial, and you are undoubtedly right in characterising the suggestion as ludicrous. On hearing the motion Mr Blackburn remarked that it would be just as reasonable that tlie debtor should bo recompensed in respect of his two visits to Auckland. And surely this is true? All that Mr Blackburn did was to illustrate the folly of the- one proposal, by putting the supposititious case of a proposal equally nntcnfiblG. Wh}* any 3ic<vfc should naVvj been expended by any creditor * upon this method of argiiment, passes comprehension, unless it he that tho answer was so effective that no argument was left the other side except abuse. I am equally unable to agree with your remark that the Deputy Official Assignee erred in any way in suggesting the name of a local gentleman of irreproachable reputation as a suitable proxy for those who were unable to attend in person. Tlie Wellington creditors were no„ obliged to accept this gentleman as proxy, but it might very well have been” a decided convenience to some of them to be supplied with th§ name of a man who was willing and able to act on their behalf, and who was recommended to them as reliable try the local bankruptcy > office. If they had another proxy in view, they would naturally appoint him but, if they knew of no suitable person who could attend, Mr Blackburn merely supplied them with the name of a reliable proxy.—l am, yours etc., 1 ONE WHO WAS PRESENT. Gisborne, -June 10.

FWhilst appreciating the reasonable tone of our correspondent’s criticism of our remarks we wish merely to point out that we have yet to learn that it is part of the duties a 8.0. A. to make any suggestion to creditors likely to be absent from a meeting as to who should .represent them. It is pleasing to see that our correspondent does not suggest that the practice is a general one. We still, consider, too, that what was complained of should not he made a precedent. —Ed. G.T.) '