THE ELL COMMISSION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIX, Issue 10050, 30 May 1893, Page 2

THE ELL COMMISSION.

The Commissioners, Mr T. Thompson, and Mr A. Turnbull, E.M., appointed to enquire into the charges made by Mr G. W. Ell, sat yesterday in the Land Board Office. Mr Lusk appeared for Mr Ell, and Mr Beswick for Me Latter and Mr Bloxam. Mr Blozam was not present, being engaged at the criminal sessions of the Supremo Court. Mr Beswick, in his opening address for the defence, said that Mr Bloxam and Mr Latter were put ou their defence because of a, loss suffered by an individual. The matter had been before the Department for years, and the Department would have taken stops in it. The allegations had been before the Courts, and had invariably been decided . against Mr Eli. Mr Latter had been discharger] from tho bankruptcy. Messrs Latter end Blosatu ware really guarding the public purse. If the charges ware substantiated, the country would, probably, have to pay. Mr Eli had said that he had certain witnesses, but they had not been called. Edward Circuit Lattei deponed that from 1884 to 1889 ho was Official Assignee. Tho greater part of Mr Ell’s charges were untrue, and the remainder were so misleading as to give a false impression. He remembered Mr Eli’s bankruptcy on April 1, 18S5. Incurred no costa to anybody. Ho estate ever came into his hands. Mr Ell did not file a statement of assets and liabilities, and gave no information with regard to his estate. Mr H. S. Austin was Mr Ell’s solicitor, and witness authorised him to take stops in the actions against Harper or Hanmor and Harper. Mr Austin at the first meeting of creditors was appointed supervisor of the estate, and asked foe authority to continue the action. The authority was given on the understanding that no costs were to be charged against the Official Assignee, who was to receive what costa were allowed in the cause. Mr Austin never made any charge against Ell’s estate. Pending the bankruptcy Mr Ell did not ask for information, but ignored >ihe bankruptcy altogether. He gave notice that he had applied for a loan. Witness pointed out to him there could be no stay to tha bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy was annulled on June 3, 1885. Witness did not instruct Mr Austin eo as to prevent Mr Ell’s name being put on the record la place of the Oflical Assignee’s, m the action Ell v. Harper. Did not interfere with Mr, Ell’s action in any way after the bankruptcy was annulled. Had told Mr Eli several times that he had no information to give, and only refused him access to books on one occasion. Late in 1837 he refused access to the whole papers on tha ground that Mr Ell bad seen and copied them so often. Mr Ell’a repeated attendance at tha office was a hindrance to the business. It was not unusual for him to be in tho office day after day. Witness’ refusal only extended to the first bankruptcy, which had been annulled. Never withheld any information ns to the second bankruptcy in August, 1886. Thera was no money in that bankruptcy. Mr Ell did not file a statement of assets and liabilities. Witness found that the funds paid into Court had been withdrawn by order of Mr Justice Johnston. Later on, on Nov, 2, 1883, witness received .£35 fis 8d by order of the J udge, and those were tho only funds ha received during the bankruptcy. A statement of assets and liabilities was filed later, on Sept. 15. Had to take steps to compel Ell to file hia statement. The order was to file the statement within three days. On Sept. 14 a further sitting of the Court was held. Mr Ell was called as he had not complied with tho order. His Honor ruled that Mr Eli was in contempt. The statement was filed on the following day. Mr Latter proceeded to detail the proceedings as to the assignment of the benefit of all actions to Mr Ell’s sen. He stated that tho creditors on Sept. 20 and 23 considered the matter, but that as a sufficient number did not attend there was no resolution. Three attended on Dec. 1. A resolution was passed authorising the Assignee to take steps to upset the assignment to Mr Ed’s son. Tho assignment was sot . aside on July 26, 1887. The deed of assignment could not be obtained for some months. Ou March 9 witness reported that the deed had been received by the solicitor. A resolution was passed for the Official Assignee to ascertain if Harpers would purchase the cause of action. On March 15 the Official Assignee was requested to let the matter remain in abey-: anco, as Harpers would not entertain the proposal. Mr Weston claimed for *85138, and always took an active part in the proceedings. Ho had previously obtained a charging order. Mr Nathan put in proof on the first bankruptcy for .£673 115.93. Examined Nathan as to the nature of his claim.

Mr Lusk objected to Mr Nathan’s statement being given by Mr Latter. Mr Nathan, he said, was dead, and they could not verify it. After argument.

Mr Latter continued : Mr Nathan stated that ho had known Mr Ell for some years. Ho did not wish to lend him money as there was very little prospect of repayment. Mr Nathan said, “-If I lend you, Ell, any money it will bo with the chance of receiving a largo sum, in return.” He gave the conversation as near as he could remember. Mr Nathan then referred to the agreement in carrying cut the terms on which the mosey was lent. The proof in the second bankruptcy was made up in the same way. Hr Ell never took steps to have the proof set aside. Witness'would have afforded him every facility to bring it before the Judge. Mr Nathan never mentioned Mr Ell’s books. Witness applied to Mr Weston for them. He produced an agreement showing they bed been assigned to Mr Nathan. He said they were the book debts of a butcher’s business, and of nominal value. A little over .£24 was collected and credited. Witness refused to accept Mr Haskins’ proof of debt for tho .£IOO claimed as damages. The alteration was made by witness and initialled by Mr Haskins. The proof was for a j udgment in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, and for rents which afterwards accrued. Tho lease wao in existence. The document pat in was not what he (witaene) called a statement of assets and liabilities. Ho had not seen the document when giving evidence before Mr Justice Johnscon. He would not have accepted it as a storomeut of asiots and liabilities. Never hud any conversation with Mr Leonard Harper with reference to Mr Ell’s bankruptcy, or

his claims. Did not say bo in Court on the proceedings upsetting the assignment of Mr Ell to inn son. Mr Ell never took any oteps to challenge the proofs of debt put in. Witness duly applied for, and obtained release in Mr Ell’a bankruptcy. Mr Ell afterwards took steps to set aside the order. Mr Justice Denniaton gave an elaborate judgment. (Copy put in.) Mr Ell never offered to supply funds to go on with the actions. He asked him if he had gone on, and his reply was, "No, not without funds from tha creditors.” Immediately before applying for the release went through the proofs of debt. Found one entry incorrect and altered it. Had n perfect right to alter any entry made by. the desks which was incorrect. From the time he resigned till within the last throe or four days he had not seen tho papers in Mr Ell’s case. Did not understand that there was any value in the books. After tha second bankruptcy witness pressed Mr Ell to give particulars of Ilia claim against Harper, but got no further information. To Mr Lusk; There were no costs incurred by the Official Assignee in the first bankruptcy. Had no bill of coats rendered by Mr Austin. At the time of the first bankruptcy Mr Austin was Mr Ell’s solicitor. Mr Austin did render a bill of coats to witness as Official Assignee of Ell. It was taxed. Did not know Mr Austin had ceasad to act. Took no further steps, and did not appear in Court. Did not know if Mr Austin appeared iu Court and opposed the application made by Mr Ell. Spnt notice to the Judge that Mr Eli’s matters stood in abeyance pending tho Judge’s decision. Did not consider that stayed proceedings in bankruptcy. It was after that that he made the examination of Mr Nathan. Could say positively that Mr Ell copied the documents in the first bankruptcy over and over again. Ho had opportunities to copy them. Mr Ell did not come for information for months after the bankruptcy. Admitted that he refused Mr. Elk information on one occasion. Told him he had no farther information to give. Mr Ell never stated what information he wanted. Did not think Mr Eli ever asked for information on the first bankruptcy. Mr EM was quite wrong in paying he was refused in February, 1886, and had to go to Mr Martin. The money got from the Supreme Court was not in the Court at the time of tho second bankruptcy. If tho <£3s was iu Court, witness was not aware of it. On Sept. 17, 1886, Mr Weston had not put in bis claim. It was put in later, Mr Beswick, Mr Haskins and Mr Weston appeared in all tha meetings after that, so that all creditors were represented except Messrs Holmes and Loughrey. Mr Holmes had notice, but was not sent for specially. Mr Stringer appeared for the creditors in the proceedings-to set aside tha deed of assignment. At the meeting Messrs Harper and Co. moved that steps should be taken to sot aside the assignment on an indemnity being given. Mr Haskins and Mr Weston took no part. Messrs Harper and Co. gave the indemnity and employed their own solicitor. Received tho *835 in November, 1887. The assignment was set aside in July, 1887. Paid Mr Weston *B2O by order of Court. The amount of costa was *826 9a Id. The order was that costs were to be paid as far as tho estate would allow. The *B2O was paid in full settlement, Mr Weston was solicitor for Nathan’s estate. Had some funds in hand. Had notice of petitioning creditors’ costa. Harpers never offered to indemnify. The creditors offered the claims to Harper and Go., who declined them. Did not remember Mr Ell giving a printed document showing all transactions with Mr Weston. Never told Mr Ell the nature of the conversation with Mr Nathan. Told him Mr Nathan relied on the agreement. After the upsetting of tha assignment Mr Weston cooled down, as he did not think he would got anything. Mr Nathan discussed the agreement. Knew any decision he came to was subject to an appeal to the Court, and thought in tho first place ho should admit it. Took no steps to set aside the proof of debt, Mr Ell never asked him to do so. Should have afforded Mr Ell every facility to sot aside Mr Weston’s proof of debt. Never saw tho hooka held by Mr Weston. Examined Mr Weston as to the amount received. It was not usual to put witnesses on oath on proofs. Mr Weston was already on oath. , Had no letter at any time from Mr Eli. Should at any time have been glad to act ou one. Knew there was a judgment in Mr Ell’s favour, and there had been a consolidating order. Mr Ell never gave him any information. Did not know the accounts were before the Registrar. Was not told the accounts were still open. Mr Weston did not say so. Never had a conversation with Mr L. Harper on the subject. Mr Harper and himself were cotr us bees in another estate, but Mr Harper never referred to these matters. Never saw the deed of assignment even after it was set aside. The evidence showed that *BIOO passed on the assignment to Mr Ell’s son. When the creditors took steps to ■ set it aside they evidently thought it was worth more than *BIOO. Was not present at the taxation of Mr Austin’s costs. Imprest account was allowed Cor Court fees and advertisement only. Did get an advance for advertising.

To Mr Beswick: Referred to the Supreme Court, not the Bankruptcy Court, when he said he did not appear. He always appeared in bankruptcy proceedings. Mr Weston proposed to offer the estate to Harper and Co. Thomas Shailer Weston, examined by Mr Beswick, deposed: Previous to Mr Nathan’s death acted as his solicitor, and afterwards as hia executor. Had business with Mr Nathan about Mr Ell’s affairs. Had to see Mr Ell about one or more promissory notes. Also sued on aa open account. Mr Nathan lent money on a system of compound interest. The mouoy was lent to enable Mr Ell to carry on proceedings against Messrs Harper. Mr Nathan collected moneys due on tho butchering business and credited them. Tha memorandum was affixed to tha proof of debt. When tho moneys were lent it was supposed that the proceedings would terminate speedily in Mr Ell’s favour, so the high rate of interest could be easilynlfoniecl. Commenced proceedings on one or more promissory notes for *B2OO, prior to Nathan’s death. Obtained judgment by default. Mr Ell endeavoured to get that judgment set aside. The proceedings took some time. Two or more lawyers were employed for Mr Ell. Mr Justice Johnston upheld the judgment, Ou that judgment applied for a charging order on Mr Harper. The order was refused. After the refusal negotiations were entered into for' a settlement. Mr Jellicoe came down from Wellington. Mr Ell could not find security. Having beard that Mr Eli was paying some of his creditors ho filed a petition in bankruptcy. One of the grounds for setting aside the judgment was that it was on aa accommodation bill. It was nothing o! tho sort. Personally offered to Mr E!1 to act for him against Messrs BArper. On one occasion Mr Ell told Mr Justice Johnston he couid get no solicitor to act against Messrs Harp&r. Offered to act for him if Mr EH would givo him a fee sufficient to remunerate him for & week’s work. If he found there was any case against Messrs Harper ho would not. Mr Bi). did not take his offer. Saw Mr Latter with Mr Nathan. Mr Latter examined Mr Nathan on the proof of debt in the first bankruptcy. Had no other object in making Mr Ell a bankrupt than that he wished to get hia money. The Messrs Harper bed never been to him more than ordinary acquaintances. As a creditor considered Mr Latter did hw duty properly. Did not consider it just to supply any funds in Mr Nathan's estate to prosecute the claim against Messrs Harper. Employed sn accountant to go into Mr Nathan’s accounts.

To Mr Luck : Tho agreement was signed long before witness had anything to do with it. Declined to express an opinion on the agreement. Mr Nathan was living when Mr Ell took proceedings in the Supreme Court. Would have been glad if Mr Ell could have recovered from Messrs Harper. Had no alternative but to prove for tho *£5138. Tha Commission adjourned till 10 a,m. to-day.