LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7340, 29 May 1885, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

BANKRUPTCY.—Dbbtoe's Examinatiow. Hcoa JLlbt Lusx (Solicitor}. —The statement of thia debtor, who bad been adjudicated a bankrupt on hie own petition, wu aa follows :—Dr. : Unsecured creditors, £3139 10a 10d; secured creditors, £525; other liabilities, £272 10s: total, -£3937 0a 10d. Gr. : Book debt*, £675, estimated to produce £75; furniture, library, and law-booke, £250; property, £425: deficiency, £3185 Oβ 10d. . In his sworn statement to the Official Assignee, the bankrupt said : I am a solicitor, and have practised my profession in Auckland since September, 1867At the beginning of the year 1862, I waa possessed of property in various parts of the Auoldand district, to the value of £2000, and regarded myself as being worth from £2500 to £3000.. My business at the time yielded, dear of expenses, nearly, if not quite, £800 a year, and the expenses of my family amounted to about £650 a year. In the month of June, 1882, I was accidentally in the course of professional business brought Into business relations with Mr. Waller, then carrying on business aa a steamboat proprietor on both coasts of the island. Soon after our first acquaintance he oame to me and proposed tbafc I should assist him to carry on his business to much greater advantage th&n he, was doing, chiefly by releasing him from certain obligations to Mr. Laishley, solicitor, which pressed very heavily upon him. Having made what appeared to be ample enquiries from Mr. Laishley, and having had what proteased to be full statements of Mr. Waller's position, liabilities and assets, laid before me, I became convinced that he waa correct in stating that assistance to the extent of £1800 at the utmost would render hie business position secure, and leave a very large margin of profit upon this transaction. I was at laac induced to take over from Mr. Laisbley the various liabilities of Mr. Waller, which amounted on tbe whole to about £1500. I also advanced or became responsible for other sums to the extent < f about £300. On doing bo I received mortgages over two steamers belonging to Mr. rt alter, which I was assured represented the amount' which I had advanced or was responsible for. Having become so far involved I gradually found that other liabilities existed and were becoming more and more pressing. The only tope of recovering the money which I bad already paid appearing to be to provide for these, 1 allowed myself to be drawn into either paying or guaranteeing further sums to a very large extent, securing as security a uQOitgaKe over tbe Oreti, steamer, which subsequently turned out to be valueless, owing to the defective condition of her machinery and boiler. Pressed by the liabilities I had undertaken, I was compelled to part with my property for very much less than it would have realized under other circumstances, and Mr. Waller having become a bankrupt in August, 18S3 with liabilities amounting to about £12,000, and assets of no appreciable value, I was compelled, in September of that year, to meet my creditors and endeavour to arrange with them. < At that time my unsecured liabilities amounted to about £3000, all with the exception of about £300 having been incurred on Mr. Waller's account. I had up to that date paid on the same account rather more than £2400 in cash over and above what was realised from the securities made over by him to me. By the advice of my solicitor I proposed to pay my creditors a composition of 6s in the £, extending over a period of three years. It was at the time explained to them that I had no property of any kind left, even my library and household furniture being mortgaged far beyond their value. My only hope, therefore, of paying the composition offered being in the expeotation that my business would enable me by strict economy to pay the half-yearly instalments. Had it coutiuued to yield anything like the amount which up to that time it had done I could have done this; but upon the arrangement being made public my busi ness at once dt dined so seriously Chat for tbe last eighteen months I have aot realised from it inuoh more than half the amount which it had yielded during the previous year. In consequence of this unexpected decrease I have been wholly unable to carry out the arrangements made with toy creditors. A sum of about £290 has beon paid to creditors, but the whole of that amount has practically been obtained by incurring fresh obligations. I now find that it is impossible to maintain the struggle with any prospect of success. The failure to pay the stipulated instalments of the composition under my deed of arrangement of 12th September, 1883, has by the terms of that deed reinstated all the old debts in their former position. With my utmost exertions, 1 have Seen, and now am unable to obtain more from my business than enough to pay its necessary expenses and support my family. Tbe extent of my indebtedness is now, on the whole, almost precisely what it was at the date of my deed of'arrangement, although the amounts have varied slightly, and owing to the circumstances already stated, seme changes have taken place in the creditors. Having recently bean much pressed by some of my smaller creditors, I have found it impossible to carry on business with efficiency, and have also suffered in health. Under these circumstances, I have been compelled to seek the protection of the Bankruptcy Act. The only available assets in the estate consist of the book debts of the bueiness, and I fear that the majority of them will J>e found very difficult of collection.

E.M. COURT.—Thubsday. [Before H. a. Seth Smith, Esq., B.M ] The weekly sitting of this Court was held to-day, and the following business disposed of:— Judgments fob the Plaintiffs,—R. H. Chester v. K. Atkinson, claim £6, costs £1 16s; J.Sperry v. H. Woorall, 3s 10d (property tax), costs 15s; L, Moses v. J. V. Bindon, £7 10s, costs 16s ; same v. same, £7 10s, costs lla ; G. Hulme v. Wm. Potter, £2 18s Id, costs £1 10s 6d; J. Stubbs v. R, Atkinson, £4 Sβ 2d, coats 15a; J. Sperry v. W. A. Crombie, 17* 7d, costs ss; John King v. E. Brennan, £3 Us 2d, costs 16s; J. Christopher v. R. Sherrin, £25, costs £4 18s; J. Kirlsman v. Morris, £4 15s, costs £1 12s 6d; H. O. Turner v. H. Norgrove, £12 6a Bd, costs 18s ; Official Assignee (estate J. Brown) v. B. M. Greaves, £5, costs £1 7s 6d ; D. H. MoKenzie v. J. Stephenson. £21, costs £4 18s ; P. Vaughan v. A. Hill, £1 2s, oosts 18s ; Clark and Sons v. A. Linabary. £31 4s 3d, costs £4 18e; M. Lennan v. Morrow, £7 14s, costs £1 16s ; C. W. A. Patterson v. Thos. Chambers, £10, costs £1 16b.

Judgment Summons Cases.—S. Cohen v. G. Dower: Claim £30 2s ; judgment by consent, to pay £30 2s 9d, by instalments of 20s per month, or one month in default. J. Abernethy v. J. Ellis: Claim £6 3s 6d; defendant ordered to pay £6 3a 6d, by instalments of 20s per week, or seven days in default. D. Goldie v. Nicholson : Claim £13 7s 7d; defendant ordered to pay £14 7s 7d within a month, or fourteen days' in default. W. Munro v. J. Clark : CUim £2 18s 6d ; defendant consented to an order to pay £2 18* 6d, by instalments of 5s per week, or five days in default.

P. Chbrbt v. O. Atkin.—Claim £6 6s, for professional services in drawing up a plan. Mr. B. Cooper for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant The plaintiff and J. Baber, 0.E., were* examined for the plaintiff, when the defendant intimated that he did not dispute the amount but the accuracy of the plan (whioh was put in), it being an auotion plan for the Bale of Mr. Wm. Hall's estate, Mount Bden, whioh bad been cut up for sate by the defendant as one of the trastees, and the plaintiff prepared the plan. For the plaintiff, Garrick Paul, civil engineer, said the measurements were incorrect, and showed » wall which could not be included in allotments. Charles Atkin deposed that he employed the plaintiff to make a plan, whioh was subsequently discovered to be inaccurate. Wm. Thome, solicitor, deposed to discovering the inacouracy in the plan, and stopped the sale. The cost of advertising and preparing lithograph plans had been lost. In cross-examination he (aid he had had a " breeze" with the plaintiff over it. His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff, and said there were inaccuracies in the plan which rendered it useless. Coots, amounting to £218*, were allowed to defendant.

Hammond and Son t. M. Byland.— Claim, £10 14a 2d, architect's fees. Mr. C. E. Button for plaintiff, and Mr, S. Besketh for defendant This was a olaim for architect's fees upon a cottage erected in 1883, at Ellerslie, for the defendant, upon a contract whioh had to be taken out of the first contractor's hands. Wm. Francis Hammond, arohiteot of the firm of Hammond and Son, deposed that he prepared plans for the house, and placed a supervisor in charge of the contract, he himself viaiting it twice a week

Mary Byland, defendant, Wμ examined at considerable length m to the- agree* ment entered into with the plaintiff, and letters lent to him complaining of the faulty construction of the house. John Jones, contractor, said he had examined the bouae; found It Very badly finished throughout; the measurement* of the room were discrepant, and ha would not have passed the timber in the verandah aa heart of kauri, aa provided by the specification!. It would require £130 to make the house according to tbe specifications. At a quarter to five p.m. the farther hearing of the case waa adjourned to Saturday at half-past ten a.m., and the reat of the defended oases, seven in number, were adjourned to next Court day,