IN BANKRUPTCY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 26 January 1927, Page 3

IN BANKRUPTCY.

A BREEZY MEETING. CREDITOR’S FAILURE TO PROVE DEBT. The meeting of creditors in the estate of Mrs Lucy Bradley O’Dowd commenced in the ordinary, hum-drum manner yesterday, but as it drewto a close the "tone of the proceedings became sharply critical. Bankrupt’s debts were assessed at £IOO Ss 7d. Nearly half of this was due to her landlady, Mrs Mary Morgan. In her statement to the meeting, bankrupt used terms which the lawyer representing the .chief creditor, the landlady, considered reflected upon his client. The lawyer himself was a member of a firm which was a creditor in the estate. After he had questioned Mrs O’Dowd at length, a creditor moved that the discharge of the bankrupt be facilitated. This was seconded by another creditor in the estate. The legal creditor, and the daughter of the landlady lie represented, indicated that they would oppose the. motion. The daughter, Mrs Martin, threw the meeting into some confusion by a vehement declamation against the bankrupt, and in support of her mother. The latter had, maintained the speaker, worked like a slave over the wash-tub to get what little money she had earned, and now she had lost it through other people. For her part, the speaker said, she was tired of being honest. ‘‘ Do you know what has happened to my mother just recently? ’ ’ she asked. “She was sued for a paltry fs 7d by a Patea local body. To all appearances the meeting was evenly divided on the motion to facilitate discharge. The D.O.A. said that, if it came to a matter of having to exercise his easting vote, he would, as in nine out of ten such cases, not feel justified in expediting the discharge. It thus appeared that Mrs o’Dowd’s discharge would not be facilitated, but just before the motion was put, counsel for bankrupt reached for the file of accounts and statements before the meeting. His demeanour became frigid as he searched the proved claims. He arose and said his learned friend could talk ‘Still his jaws cracked, but he cannot do any good.” Though his firm was a creditor and was entitled to be present at the meeting, as well as representing the creditor landlady, he had no right to vote, because his firm had omitted to submit proof of debt. The omission resulted in the carrying of the motion favouring the facilitation of the discharge of the bankrupt.