MEETING OP CREDITORS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2051, 15 June 1893, Page 28

MEETING OF CREDITORS.

A first meeting of the creditors in the estate of Richard Theodore Booth, of Dunedin, manufacturer, was held in the official assignee's office yesterday afternoon. Mr Paul, the deputy official assignee, presided. Mr Barclay appeared for the debtor, and Mr A. S. Adams for the company. Mr J. W. Jago was the only creditor present. The debtor's statement was as follows :— To unsecured creditors, £445 lls lid ; to secured creditors, £1522 2s 5d (less estimated value of securities, £2645) ; surplus to contra, £1123 2s sd; total liabilities, £1967 14s 4d. Assets: Book debts, £20 ; shares in R. T. Booth and Co. (Limited), £800; shares in the Austral Gold Company, £75 ; books and plate, £70 ; properby, £1700; total, £26Sb— apparent surplus, £697 5s Bd. The unsecured creditors are— M. Goulsbon (Sydney), £5; Charles Waters (N.S.W.), £98 9s Id; Henry Pain (N.S.W.), £33 18s 9d; Wallach Brothers (Sydney), £27 Is 3d ; David Jones and Co. (Sydney), £9 12s 3d; Charles S. Ryan (Melbourne), £150; W. Murray (NS.W.), £4- 15s; W. Chappie (N.S.W.), £2 14s; M'Lean Bros, and Eigg (Melbourne), £90 17s 3d; Duffet, Brown, and M'Culloch (Melbourne), £5 15s 6d; Herbert, Haynes, and Co, . (Dunedin), £9 2s Id ; P. Smibh and Co. (Dv&- ! edin), £11 7s. The secured credibors are :— j Thomas B. Downes, £60 (estimated value of security £70) ; Evan Prosset and William ] Hamilton (Sydney), £1242 2s 5d (estimated value of security £1700); G. H. Whiteman (Melbourne), £20 (estimated value of security £75) ; R. T. Booth and Co., lien £200 (estimated value of security £800). The real estate consisbs of an acre and a-half, with nineroomed wooden house at Bowral, New South Wales. Mr Paul said that the statement was made out in a somewhat irregular way ; it showed an apparent surplus. However, that was not a material matter, and could be rectifisd. Mr Barclay said that this was frequently the case. Mr Paul said the securities ought to have been so valued as to show where the deficiency would accrue. Mr Barclay replied that the values set down were the face values of the property. Whether they realised that or not was another matter ; he was afraid they would not. Mr Jago said that the estimated value of property was often very different from the actual realisable value. Mr Adams said that what was wanted was that the statement should be put in proper ! form, and that, no doubt, could be done in the ! office with but little trouble. Mr Paul said that the Victorian and New South Wale? creditors had been advised of the filing, and asked if any proxies had been received. Mr Jago said that none had yet come to hand, but that he expected to receive some shortly. The Debtor, examinedby the deputy-assignee, said he had been a resident in Dunedin for over 12 months. He had been a professional lecturer on temperance, and for a little over six months had been managing director of R. T. Bouthand Company (Limited), manufacturers of Booth's " Golden Remedies." He had an interest in ibis company, holding 850 shares cf 20s each. These shares had never been put on the market or quoted. He had sent forms of proxies to his creditors; and thought that his ! creditors would appoint proxies and recommend J his discharge. His financial difficulties had ! arisen solely in consequence of the serious shrinkage of values in property in New South Wales and in Victoria. Mr Barclay said there was some restriction upon dealing with the shares of the company — something in the articles of association that they could nob be disposed of except to the company. Mr Adams said there was some form of restriction, but he did not think ib was so striDgent as that. He would not like to say definitely what it was without referring to the articles of association. Examination of debtor continued : What had immediately led to his filing was the action of the mortgage creditors, who had had his property for Bix months in their possession, and were only too glad to get it. Mr Paul : Was that before the floods ? Debtor : Yes, before the floods. The floods came, swept away all bhe fences, and practically ruined the property. Then there was the failure of the banks, and the mortgagees probably thought I would nob file, but would find the money anyhow, and they issued a writ for £1242, which is the immediate cause of my filing. The property would not now realise £500. Judgment was signed against me, and I was advised to file. The meeting was then adjourned for a week, on the understanding that if proxies do not arrive in time another adjournment will be granted.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COUR

,T,

a

Wednesday, June 14. (Before Mr B. H. Carew, R.M.)

David Mockham v. Robert M'Dougall (Lake Wanaka) .—Claim £22 15s, for wages and damages for wrongful dismissal. — Mr Platts appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Webb (instructed by Mr Turton) for the defendant.— In this case, which was heard at Port Chalmers on Saturday last, his Worship gave judgment as follows-.--" The evidence satisfies me that plaintiff shirked his duty on the 28bh of January in leaving the steamer as he did. Hi 3 agreement was to act as fireman as well as engineer, and if he wanted assistance to clean the flues on that Saturday he should have arranged with the captain about it, or have done it himself. In consequence of his neglect the boat was not ready to proceed on her usual journey on the following Monday morning at the proper time. As to what took place on the Monday morning the plaintiff's evidence conflicts with that of the defendant and his witnesses. It is clear that the plaintiff received a written notice that morning that he was to leave the employ in a month's time. His own account is that he then went to the telegraph office to report the state of the machinery to the inspector, and on his return to the boat shortly afterwards he found the engine room closed against him and he then lefg the boat, as he could not go to work, and did not return. Captain IVlatheson's evidence is that after plaintiff left tho boat he did not return till next day, and then he (the captain) refused to let him go to work. Defendant; says that after he served plaintiff with the notice he requested and tried to iaduce him to resume work, but he would nob do so, and consequently the boat could nob go a trip that day. The witness Hedditch says that when plaintiff went on shore he asked him (Hedditch) whether he was going to ride the mail up, as be (plaintiff) was not going with the steamer until the tubes were cleaned and the furnace scraped. I feel satisfied that the plaintiff refused to do this work, that it was pait of his duty to do it under "the agreement, and the defendant was therefore justified in putting an end to the contract. The agreement provides for wages at so much per month, and plaintiff having broken the contract during the currency of a moath he is nob entitled to wages for the broken period. With regard to the claim for fare from Pembroke to Dunedin, it seems very doubtful if the parties contemplated the last clause in their agreement to apply to conditions like those under which the agreement was put an end to, bat if it doe s the claim is set off by the right of defendant to recover the up-country fare on plaintiff's refusing work. Judgment for defendant, with costs of examination of witnesses at Pembroke (245), professional costs there (425), and professional costs at the hearing (425). The costs of taking evidence at Dunedin, which was admitted by consent, should not be allowed for."