BANKRUPT’S TROUBLE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7865, 29 July 1911, Page 6

BANKRUPT’S TROUBLE

A PECULIAR CASE. LAWYERS AT LOGGERHEADS. FBESS ASSOCIATION. DUNEDIN, July 28. Some peculiar features characterised a meeting of creditors this afterneon, when tlu> first meeting of creditors in the estate of Thomas Ireland, of Dunedin, was held. Bankrupt’s statement showed he owed <£Bl3 IGs to unsecured creditors. These were:—Adams Bros.* £'3 3s; D. M. Sutherland, A 3 2s; G. L. Denuiston, £J Is SI; Airs Darina Ireland (bankrupt’* wife), under a judgment of the Supreme Court, carrying interest at 6 per cent., £2UD 10s Sd; maiatenanco due under agreement, £G ISs 8d; future maintenance under agreement, £2 12s a month during the- wife’s Hie, estimated at .£450, and future maintenance under agreement 17s •Id per month until G-ordon Ireland (tho cliild) reached the age oi sixteen years, estimated at £75. ORbere were no assets. A written statement Lied by bankrupt was that in July, DJO-i, ho entered, into a deed of separation with his wife, agreeing to pay her £2 12s a month for her maintenance, and 17s'4d a month for the maintenance of their infant sou. It was the accumulated liability under the deed that had compelled him to file. Until May, 1000, ho was able to make payment as agreed, but from that time onwards he had never been in a position to do so, and was only intermittently employed. In Juno last his wife issued a writ against him from the Supremo Court claiming £207 interest and money ■Jug under tho agreement of separation, and judgment was shortly afterwards entered against him for £2i>9 10s Bd. He had no means of satisfying the judgment and in view ...of the possibility of further proceedings had thought the best course was to file his petition in bankruptcy. Bankrupt, examined by .Mr Moore, said he had nothing with which to contribute towards the maintenance of his wife. the time lie was with the Earmers' Co-operative Association, about sixteen months, he paid his mother £1 a week board. He gave it when he had it. He made a fair offer to his wife, but she would not accept. lie offered tho child a home five years ago. , He and his wife separated because they could not live together, and ho arranged to contribute towards the support of tho child before it was born. lie had back debts/ to pay when he was with tho rarmors' Co-operative Association. Mr Moore: You would sooner havo your wife a creditor than your mother? Bankrupt: I had to pay my way. Mr Moore continued this course of examination, when Mr Sutherland rose end said ho knew the young fellow had been out of work a good time and had assisted him. He objected to seeing him badgered. A man must pay his personal living, and he (the speaker) protested against this course of examination. In fairness, had anyone the right to “rub it in like this? Mr Moore; lie has not taken the right course. How much were you behind with yonr mother when you went into Che co-operative association 5 Bankrupt:. About six months. Mr Moore: And how much arrears with your wife? Bankrupt: I could not tell you. Mr Moore: Some years in arrears? Bankrupt; No. ~j Mr Moore; Did you pay your wife? Bankrupt; I Had to pay board. It is a reasonable way to pay, money away. Mr Moore : Is it not a reasonable thing to pay your way equally? Bankrupt; No, ii pay my way first. My wife is not in need, neither is the child. \ Mr Moore : Is. you mother in need ? Bankrupt: lam in need. I have kept myself. Mr Sutherland : I think the law will say that the man should pay his way proportionately. To bankrupt: How much did you send your wife? Bankrupt: I sent her about £3,, and she had not tho courtesy to acknowledge what I sent. After fuithcr questioning, Mr Moore said ho did not think any advantage would bo gained by continuing the examination. Two of the creditors wore there at tho instigation of tho bankrupt practically. (Adams,, had taken some exception to Mr Moore’s examination previously.) A ease similar to this one had arisen in Wellington at tho beginning of this month, .and it appeared to him (Mr Moore) that bankrupt in the present case had gone considerably out'ofhis way to abuse tho procedure of the bankruptcy court so as to do his wife out of any money he might mako later on.. Ho w-as going out of his way to cancel not only his present liability to his wife, but his future liability also. Tho Assignee said it looked like taking refuge under the Bankruptcy Act to settle a dispute bottvecn husband and wife. Ho did not think it necessary to impart any feeling into tho matter. It wa- a question as to what should bo done. No resolution , could be passed favourable to the wife because she had not tho voting power, so the only thing was to adjourn tho meeting sine die. To Mr Moore; You don’t suggest your client can pass any resolution? Mr Moore; No. Assignee ; Nor does the. other side. Mr Adams: No. Wo propose to apply for a discharge at an early opportunity. Tho meeting then adjourned sine die.