BANKRUPTCY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8473, 26 January 1891, Page 3

BANKRUPTCY.

B. GITTOS & SONS. John Grrros, of the firm of B. Gittos and Sons, made the following sworn statement before the Official Assignee on Saturday morning:— am a member of the firm carrying on business as B. Gittos and Sons. My father, B. Gittos, established the business in the year 1857. My brother James and myself joined my father in 1873 as partners, having previously been in his service. We put nothing into the business. The balance struck at that time was £3300 to the good, and my father admitted us as equal partners with himself. Up to ISB3 our business prospered. In that year an action for damages was instituted for £1000 injury to water rights at our tannery. An injunction was obtained compelling us to stop operations there within three months. This paralysed our trade for 18 months. We had to pay about £200 in order to compromise the action. Through this the tannery property was partly sold at a considerable loss to us. In 1884 we secured a new site for a tannery at Richmond at a total cost with buildings of £5137. In order to reduce our overdraft, which amounted to £4600, we raised £2500 on this property and reduced the overdraft to that extent, with the understanding that we should be allowed to go or. Within three months afterwards, however, the bank insisted upon a further reduction. In order to comply we had to work out the tannery stock, and by that means paid of another £1000, making the overdraft about £1500. The bank, within a month, then demanded security, and we had to give them 2150 shares, 13s 6d paid up (representing at that time a value of £1450), in the Northern Boot and Shoe Company, and three mortgages (then good securities) over real property of the value of £520. The overdraft; at this time was about £1500. The increase is due to our getting an additional £360 to pay £360 to pay legacies to our sisters. When this was completed the bank declined to afford us any further accommodation. Through this action we, had to seriously curtail oar business, and having heavy liabilities — interest on £5300 at 7 per cent, and 9 per cent., and ordinary trade bills and current accounts. In 1888 and 1889 we made an effort to .float) the business as a limited liability concern, but failed. We offered the tannery for £3300; and, being pressed by the mortgagees for overdue interest, we parted with the property to them for £2369, the surplus to us being £175. As already stated, this property cost us £5137 in 1884. In April, 1889, wo had a sale of stock,

realising £270. £100 of this went) to tht, bank overdraft, and the balance went to pay "various trade acooimts. Aboufa a fortnight ago we were pressed for overdue interest, and a writ was issued, upon which we were advised to file "a petition of insolvency. During the last nine months we have reduced our open trade accounts by £400. Our present unsecured debts amount to £362 4a 2d. The assets consist of :—Stock-in-trade, £245 (for stock list taken on the 21st instant) ; book debts, £19445-5 d (which I consider to be good within £10); unencumbered property, £50; and estimated surplus from securities in hands of secured creditors, £1068 2a lOd; total, £1557 14a 3d, or a surplus of £1195 103 Id. Oar valuations of the securities are based on-the last property tax returns. I have disclosed everything in the nature of assets. Before the meeting cook place I purposed consulting my friends with a view to suggests compromise. With regard to my private or separate estate I owe £45 7s Id, and about £100 more for overdue interest to the mortgagee of my dwelling house,, valued at £1050, the mortgage debt)-being £1150. The only asset I possess is -the household furniture, which I eshimatartofce worth £40.