MR. W. STIMPSONS BANKRUPTCY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9025, 11 April 1888, Page 6

MR. W. STIMPSONS BANKRUPTCY.

An adjourned meeting of creditors in the estate of Walter Stimpson, bankrupt was held yesterday afternoon at the offices of the Official Assignee. Mi*. Lawson presided, and the debtor and Mrs. Stimpson, with their solicitor (Mr. H. Campbell), Mr. Ivey and Mr. W. Coleman (representing the Bank of New South Wales), and Mr. S. Hesketh (on behalf of the National Bank), were present. The previous meeting had been adjourned to permit the Assignee to summon Mrs. Stimpson and Mr. Ehrenfried; but Mr. Lawson now said that he had not thought it necessary to ask the latter to attend.

Mr. Stimpson was sworn, and said that in December, 1887, he was in possession of the Queens Ferry Hotel, and owned stock and furniture. When he left on the 7th of December the -stock and furniture was valued at £385, and was sold for that amount. There was other furniture in the house which was not included in the bill of sale, and this was removed to a private residence at College Hill. He had no idea of the value of this furniture, and did not know how many waggon loads there were. A portion of this furniture was now at the Queen's Ferry Hotel, and he did not know where the remainder was. It was not his furniture ;it belonged to Mrs. Stimpson, and he did not know when she acquired it; she had some of it previous to their marriage. Mrs. Stimpiion had not to his knowledge any private means, and he had not inquired how she obtained the furniture in question. There was a bill of sale to Messrs. Whitson and Sons over the furniture, which had been sold to Mrs. Sloane ; and he presumed that this .was the bill of sale which was held by Mr. Ehrenfried. He had no interest whatever in the bill of sale, and knew nothing of it. The account produced showed what had been done with the money received from Mrs. Slsone. One item was "Repaid trust money, £200." This money had been invested in his business for two and a-half years. In reply to the question, " Where is that money now ?" witness said he had invested it for the benefit of his children, but he declined to state where it was invested.

Mr. Coleman said it was singular that the debtor had £200 employed in his hotel business, and on the eve of his bankruptcy he coolly took it out and placed it somewhere else.

. Mr. Stimpson replied that the money was not his.

On the application of Mr. Coleman, the Assignee said he would give a certificate empowering an examination of the bankrupt before the Court.

Examination continued : Mrs. Sloane left the hotel about the Bth February, and Mrs. Stimpson then assumed the business, and took over the stock-in-trade and a portion of the furniture.

Mr. Coleman: How much did Mrs. Stimpson pay- on going back to the hotel ? Witness : I don t know anything of Mrs. Stimpson's business. Mr. Coleman urged the debtor to be careful in what he said, and he repeated the question, when the same answer was given. Mr. Cojeman pointed out that when witness was previously he said that he knew what his wife paid on going into the hotel.

The debtor replied that if he had said this he had made a mistake. He contributed nothing towards the purchase of the stock-in-trade and furniture on his wife resuming possession of the hotel. Mr. Coleman : Did any of that £200 to which we have referred go towards the purchase? Witness: That money is outside my business. . Mr. Coleman pressed the question, bub the Official Assignee said he (Mr. Lawson) could not compel the bankrupt to answer. Mr. Stimpson, in answer to further interrogations, said he knew nothing of what had passed between Mrs. Stimpson and Mrs. Sloane when the former resumed possession of the hotel.

Mrs. Stimpson was examined at some length, and deposed that she did not know what was paid for the stock, etc., when purchased by Mrs. Sloane. The furniture which had been removed to the cottage at College Road was her property, the greater part of it having been received as wedding presents, whilst the remainder was acquired on different occasions since her marriage, with allowances made to her by her husband.- Mrs. Stimpson protested against the; questions put oy Mr. Coleman. She was hot the bankrupt, and she did not think the public were entitled to know her private affairs. She would answer the questions privately, and not in public. Mr. Campbell did not think the object of an examination was to annoy the witnesses. Mrs. Stimpson said that the money paid by her on resuming possession of the hotel did not belong to her husband ; and she did not think, therefore, that her husband's creditors had any right to know where she obtained it. An answer to the question would involve a friend.

Mr. Campbell: Mrs. Stimpson very properly objects to answer the question, and Mr. Coleman ought not to persist. If he does not know better, he ought to know better. He is only entitled to examine the witness with respect to her dealings with the bankrupt. Mr. Coleman asked the Assignee if he would rule that his question was a proper one. 1 ' ' ■ * 1

The Assignee Mrs. Stimpson's reason for refusing, is that the answer would involve dealings with a third party. She has distinctly stated that the money did not belong to her husband, and I think that is all < that is required. It might be said, what business have we to meddle in private matters which do not concern us ? It appears to me that Mrs. Stimpson's answer is all that could be made.

Mr. Coleman said he would' not press the question. > After further discussion, Mrs. Stimpson again expressed her willingness to afford all information in a private interview; and it was agreed that this interview take place at Mr. Campbell's office this afternoon.