BANKRUPTS' SURPLUS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19607, 8 April 1927, Page 9

BANKRUPTS' SURPLUS.

" BUNGLING BY SOMEONE." AFFAIRS OF KAITAIA FIRM. ALL DEBTS LIKELY TO BE PAID. The creditors in the estate of Ernest Clement Matthews and Leonard Henry Bell, of Kaitaia, hardware merchants, trading as Beli and Matthews, met in Auckfeind yesterday. Mr. E. P. Ramsay, deputy-official assignee at Whangarei, presided. Messrs, J. 3. Butler and J. B. Reynolds appeared for the bankrupts. Particulars of the estate showeS that the liabilities to unsecured creditors were £2172, and to a secured creditor—the Bank of Australasia—£lo34, secured upon properties estimated to be worth £2526. The assets were £SBIO, of which the principal items were stock-in-trade £IOOO, and estimated value of book debts £1000; furniture, £310; surplus from secured property, £1492; estimated excess of assets over liabilities, £1637. The debtors, in their filed statement, said that in February last one of their creditors obtained judgment against them for £2OO. In consequence, thay sent a circular letter to their creditors suggesting that the partnership estate should bo assigned. As the creditor mentioned and two others would not consent to this course a distress warrant was issued, and it became necessary to file in the interests of the creditors as a whole. The estate should realise 20s in the £ if the stock was sold to the best advantage. Mr. Butler steted that the private estate of Matthews would show a surplus of £6BOO, and that of Bell about £IO,OOO. - Statement oI the Position. Leonard H. Bell, under examination* said that prior to 1923, he took no active part in the business. There had been certain evident leakages and he had never been able to ascertain the cause. When he and his partner took firm hold of the business they brought it on to a good footing. It was wholly and solely on account of the action of the creditor that obtained the judgment that they had filed. Witness thought that if he had come to Auckland and seen his creditors instead of trusting the matter -to writing, the bankruptcy could have been avoided. t Mr. Butler pointed out that three years ago the firm owed £4OOO to ordinary creditors and had a bank overdraft of £2500. The present statement showed that £I9OO was owed to creditors and £llOO to the bank. The actual position .was indeed much better than that. A property sale which was certain to be completed would wipe out the bank overdraft, and then only £I9OO of debts due to the creditors would remain. He suggested that the creditors should appoint a committee to act with the deputyofficial assignee with a view to allowing the debtors time to see whether they could not raise a sufficient sum to pay a certain proportion of their debts and have time to meet the balance. It- would be a pity to have a forced realisation, I£ tha course ha suggested were taken it would probably be possible to haVe the bankruptcy annulled. Appointment of Committee. On the motion of Mr. W. J. Hunter (John Burns and Co., Ltd.), seconded by Mr. C. 0. Dunsford (Arthur Yates and Co., Ltd.), a committee was appointed accordingly, the resolution expressing the opinion that it was desirable the realisation of the assets should be delayed for such time as the assignee thinks fit, to enable the bankrupts to put a proposal for payment to the creditors. > The deputy-official assignee expressed the opinion that there! had been a lot ol bungling in the estate—he did not say by the bankrupts, but by someone. He felt positive the creditors would get 20s in the £.