STORY OF BARONETCY

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 11933, 13 September 1924, Page 9

STORY OF BARONETCY

£60,000 TO PARTY FUNDS SUM REPAID TO CREDITORS. STATEMENT AND A DENIAL. Some piquant disclosures were made at a recent meeting of the creditors of the late Sir John H. Stewart, Bart., of tb© firm of Messrs Alexander Stewart and Sons, distillers, Dundee. Reference was made to the sum of £50,000 contributed to party funds. This, it was stated, had, been returned. Counsel appearing for a large creditor intimated that he did not believe that £50,000 was the utmost paid ‘‘for that baronetcy,” or that the payment made had been refunded. The statement cf affairs disclosed a deficiency of upwards of half a million sterling. Sir John H. Stewart was created a baronet in 1920. Last February he wa6 found shot at Fingask Castle, Perthshire. The trustee, Mr R. C. Thompson, of Dundee, explained that whe*- Sir John Stewart died nis affairs were in a state of the greatest confusion. Lady Stewart delivered a large number of suitcases, boxes, etc., containing what purported to be Sir John's papers. These were in a state of chaos, and even now he could not say that the examination of the documents had been fully completed. There were more than 40 of these suitcases, which were still lying at his, the trustee’s, office. The main bulk of the papers were of no interest, consisting of old bills, books, etc. A DEFICIENCY OF £570,000. ■Mr Gavin Ralston, for a large London creditor": Did .you get them all? <—l am told that I did. Are you sure she did not make away with any of them?—She says she did not. Have you them under seal, —They are in my safe. Very few documents of any value had been found, added the trustee. Sir John kept no books, apparently, with regard to hie private affairs. The net results of the investigations showed that the assets amounted to £52.000, against apparent debts of some £600,000. There was, it had been ascertained, roally • a deficiency of £570,000. That wuld give about Is Id in the £, provided the doubtful assets were found to be good. Mr Thompson said that a contribution had been made by the late Sir John to party funds. Steps were taken to investigate the position, and from a , source which was beyond exception it

wag learned that a sum af £60,000 had been contributed, by the deceased; "At, the same_ timo, ’ ’ proceeded the trustee, "the judicial fiaotona learned that in December, 1922, a representation had been made on behalf of deceased that Im was in financial straits and w-ae being pressed by creditors, and in order to avoid bankruptcy proceedings repayment ot the amount was asked. The amount was repaid to deceased in December, 1922, and was distributed by him or on his behalf for and amonfc the creditors who were then pressing him. Ae a result of their investigations the judicial factors wew» satisfied that the statement made to them woe authentic, and that there vas no fur ther sum available from this, source." A BRUSH WITH COUNSEL. The chairman, Sir White, of London: Can you give us the date when the £50,000 was contributed ?- T have not the date. Mr Ralston: Have you the name of tho iindaibtcd eoaunces ?—Yes, but I cannot disclose it. Do you refuse?—Yes. Was that money (£60,000) paid to Mr Lloyd George P—l have not the slightest idea.. But you have access to itnormaticn. You must know something about its destination? —I would just say once and for all that this otatement was advisedly prepared, and I am n£t prepared to add anything to it or ta*ko anything from it. That means that you are not prepared to give us any information at all about this matter? You cefuso to add to the information that ycu have given?—l do. Mr Ralston then moved that the meeting to adjourned, saying he hoped the trustee would como next time in "a better frame of mind.” “Steps will probably be taken to compel him to make these disclosures,’ * added Mr Ralston. He did not believe for a moment that £50,009 was the utmost paid "for that baronetcy.” He knew of the prices of baronetcies in the past —it was more likely thfit £150,000 was paid, and he did not believe the money was repaid. The motion for adjournment was not seconded. "THIS PARTY FUND BUSINESS.” The chairman observed that he had a good deal of sympathy with the desire for more information about "this party fund business.” "One would have fancied,” he added, "that with a large sum like this, even in the confused accounts of the gentleman whose financial proceedings were so extraordinary, there must be some trace of the expenditure, even if it to

be £50,000. I-am not sure that I agree ■with my friend as to the price of baronetciee—£so,ooo may have been sufficient at the time. Some of the money, I know, was got back, because pressing creditors had some of it. Mr Ralston: I want to know the name of the man with whom he dealt. The chairman: That may be difficult to obtain. I think you may take it as certain that every brass farthing Sir John Stewart could have got back was obtained. Mr Ralston: In any event, he was a Lloyd George, whisky baronet. Ie there no means by which the trustee could force those who handle the Lloyd George political fund into the courts by some method equivalent to what we call “discovery”? Will the trustee ask, that lady Stewart shall do the right thing? The trustee: Lady Stewart is not prepared to give anything more than she has done. With reference to the allegation that Sir John Stewart had paid £50,000 to party funds as the price, of a baronetcy, a member of Mr Lloyd George’s secretariat subsequently stated that the ex-Premier had no knowledge of any such transaction.