MEETING OF CREDITORS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12394, 2 July 1902, Page 7

MEETING OF CREDITORS.

Re Margaret Peters. A meeting Of creditors in the estate of Mar- ' garet Peters, hotelkceper, Duncdin, was held . yesterday afternoon. Eight creditors attended, j Bankrupt was represented by Mr 'Hanlon. I The statement of liabilities and assets put ! in showed the former to amount to £1710 8s 9d and the latter to nil. The creditors were all unsecured, and the principal amounts were:— Speight and Co., £919 lGs lOd; John Laffey, £220; Thomson and Co., £15 7s 7d; lane nnd Co., £55 10s; Powley and Keast, £26 10s; Siev- ■ wright Bros, and Co,, 1140;' Sievwright and James, £189 103 8d; Scoular and Co., .{37; Wtttdell Bros., £19 17s 3d; liastie Bros., £41 lis 4d; D.1.C., £9 10s. A statement was handed in by the bankrupt in reference to her insolvency. 'In it she stated that she formerly' held a lease of the George Hotel, Port Chalmers, and carried on business there with considerable success. In Juno of 1901 she sold out of tho, George Hotel and bought the leaso of the Gridiron Hotel in Dun- | edin, taking possession on 31st June, 1901, ! She paid for the lease, which then had about i four years to run, £1825, with stock and fiimi- : ture at valuation. The.total amount of the ■ purchase money, includfag all adjustments of . rent, rates, insurance, license, etc., was £2027 ; 18s Bd. less credit on account of rates, rent, jtc., £35 10s; and of this she paid £595 2s fld i in cash, this sum representing the amount re- | cc-ived by hor out or the George Hotel, and a further sum in cash of £69 lis Od, nnd she borrowed £950 from Messrs Speight and Co. and , Messrs Thomson and Co.. and a further sum of £77 14s 5d from Messrs Sievwright and James, i to make up the requisite amount. Her cash j takings sincc the 21st of June, 1901, up to tho j date of her eviction were as follows:—1901 i June (31 to 30) £189, July £205 Ss, August £184 j 4s 3d September £175 9s fid, October £157 8s ! 'Id, November £251 4s Gd, December £171 15s j Gd, January £195 189 lid, February £121 IGs ! 3d, March £143 8s 9d, April £130 los Gd, May i (to 18th) £73 18s lid;—total, J2OOG fls. The | house required a good deal of renlenishing ! when she went into it, and she had* spent for painting, furniture, and furnishing a sum of between £GOO and £700. On the 14th of Dccemt ber, 1901, her son, Mr A, J. Peters, who was • also a lessee of the holel and the holder of tho hfcense, was convicted of a faifling* offence I against tho licensing laws, and iu consequence ' of this the landlord, Mt John Laffey, of Duncdin, hotelkeeper, gave the said A. J. Peters , and her notice of tho determination of the lease. I He subsequently commenced an .action in the Supreme Court for the recovery of tho posses- ' sioa of the premises, and judgment was given in his favour, damages and coats. A motion for relief against the forfeiture filed by the said A. J. Peters and herself was tin- , successful. The mortgagees took possession of all the furniture under the powers of sale, and when this had been removed Mr Lnffey's bailiff demanded possession, and it was given him. . She had an opportunity of selling the hotel for £1930 and stock at valuation just after the New lenr, but this sale fell through owing to her ! refusal to pay Mr Laffey £27 Gs for his consent and to Mr faievwright's refusal to allow a settlement uiitil she consented to a deduction from the purchase money of Messrs Sievwright ■ Bros and C.o.'s account, Messrs Thomson's current account, Messrs Powley and lCesst's account, and Messrs Sievwright and James's account, She objected to pay Mr -Laffey £27 Gs because she had to pay him £50 for his consent to a transfer of the lease to herself. Had this sale taken place she could have paid every creditor 20s in the pound and had a good sum for herself, she attributed her failure entirely to 1 Mr Laffey's inconsiderate treatment of his tenant. Mr Laffey, who was present at the meeting, although he had not proved in the estate, volunteered himself as a witness, unci was accoiaingly sworn. He then made a statement ' to i.ho clfoct that he was only, too glad to copsent to the sale by Mrs Petors. All that he stipulated for in regard to the. sale was that . a dccent person should be put in. 1 Cross-examined by Mr Haiilon, Witness said that was tho only condition that he imposed. Money was never dis:uss:4.' When Mr Grecnsltidc brought a client to him and aeked if he could go in he said ho had no objections so long as ho wa3 decent, J i r a,! Ion: Did you not make it a condition that all costs should be paid? Witness: That is my business. The Assignee said tho witneej must answer. \\ itnes.s (continuing) said was no demand made for the costs before the action for ejectment. He knew that bankrupt was involved with Speight and Co., but not with Thomson and Co. She had led him to believe- that she did not owe them anything. He thought at the time that she was involved with Speight and Co., but did not remember being actually informed of it. He denied asking Speight and Co. to buy the lease of the hotel so that they v.-ould avoid making a heavy V.ss, nnd lis did Jiot offer the lease to anyone for i'GOOO. He did not put any nrico on the prnpetty be/ore sho went mil. He did not want to sol! the lease of the hotel. Mr Hauion: Whatv was (he cause of your anxiety to get her out ol the hotel to the pre- ' judice o: her creditors? Witness: To clear, the house. Mr Han'on snid that the bankrupt had spent considerable sums of money in renovating the house. The. examination, which had been cliarac- , tensed by considerable u'avnith, chiefly byreason of Mr I.affey's announced determination not to answer every question that Mr Hanlon put to him, Mas, at this stago interrupted by the entry of Mr Stilling, who appeared to represent All* LaOVy. Mr Stilling saitT that it appeared from what he was iold that, one of the creditors who had not proved was being cross-oxammjd for the , bji.clit o! t!n> bar,krit.pl. The Assignee said that ho had a right to call . any creditor to give evidence lliat- might throw light on the circumstances of the case. Mr, Laffev had been sworn, and if lie would not answer the questions put to him ho.could be committed for contempt.

Mr Hanlon slid he was asking the questions that ho was to show that the bankruptcy was brought about by tlio harsh treatment by Air Laffey,

After'further argument between the solicitors the eross-esainination was resumed.

Witnoss, in reply ,to Mr Hanlon, Koid he knew that Mrs I'ctors made some alterations, but be thought they were for the worse. The report of the inspector was not very favourable. Ho could not say whether that was aftar the action for ejectment was started.' Bankrupt, said-that she snent £220 on. the lic-use. ' . • '

Mr Hanlon: Did you know that tl'.c license was not endorsed because of the offence .'or which Mr Peters was convicted? Witness said that all he knew-was that- a breach of the covenant o{ the lease had b cc » committed. He, never considered at the timi whether it was ail endorsement. lie made tip 1113 mind that he was not goin<* to keep ill any tenant who did not act tip to the lease. How c<mld he know what loss the others would sustain by the njeciment? Ifp never asked Mr Thomson to 'buy the lease. Mr Hanlon asked jf it : ivas not his object, by closing Mrs Peters up to get Speight and Co. to buy tho lease.

Witness said he was, rot going to tell them Ills object.

Mr Hanlon insisted on witness informing him whether he offered the lease lo -Speight anil Co. for £6000 previous to the action. Mr Lnffey said that- ho did not.do.so. Tho firm referred to wero'not'anxions to hay'e Mrs Peters turned out, and ho said if they were anxious to keep her in they-had better'buy the plnce In further conversation ho monh® had previously refused £6900. i £ 3S *S nGI3 said that it was very unfortunate that thebaic not take pla(jo before the cjcctmcnt took nhcc. Hnd that been done the creditors would have, got -their .money in full; as things Vera they would get nothing. _ Bankrupt repeated the remark she had made in her statement thut tho sale she could have mcde ifell through because of her refusal- to pay .the costs which she -thought Mr Laffey .should not. havo charged. Mr Stilling maintained that it was more likely because of Messrs Sicvwright and, Co. wishing to deduct the-money alio owed.thepi. The Assignee said whoever was to blame the result was very unfortunate, as none of the creditors would get .anything. There were no assets, so that he could do nothing, Mr Thomson (Thomson and Co.) moved that the bankrupt be recommended for lief discharge.

The motion woe carried unanimously.