A BANKRUPT ESTATE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3102, 27 August 1913, Page 10

A BANKRUPT ESTATE.

CASE OF WILLIAM MONAGHAN. AST ONISHIN G CROSS-EXAM IN ATI ON. A WOMAN’S ASSERTIONS. AUCKLAND, August la Proceedings iu connection with the bankrupt estate of William Monaghan were resumed to-day before Mr Eisner (Official Assignee). \V iiliam Monaghan, of illierslie, was adjudicated bankrupt as the result of a petition lodged by Mrs Christina Danzey, who obtained judgment against him for £199 in the Supreme Court, the outcome of an action for slander. Monaghan had refused to pay this claim, and said he contested the ciaim on the grounds that he held a mortgage of £6OO over two houses which the petitioning creditor was purchasing from him, and on which he alleged- the principal and interest were overdue. Mrs Danzey was represented by Mr R. A. Singer, and Mr J. R. Lundon appeared for the bankrupt. The proceedings were wholly confined to a cross-examination of Mrs Danzey, who gave evidence with the object of substantiating her claim. She maintained that this was a bona fide one, and that she had made a regular payment of £1 per week, together with interest due. She stated that she had paid out moneys to Monaghan in excess of what was actually due, and that she had obtained these sums bv betting on racehorses. Payments in excess of amounts duo were made in December, January, •June, and July from moneys absolutely made on the racecourse. She bad got tips from trainers. It was suggested that the first entry in the book produced was originally meant for £l, and had been converted into £6. This was denied by the petitioner, who said that it was meant for £l. The Official Assignee: It certainly lodka as if it had been altered. Bankrupt asked if the next dozen entries were not all altered, but the petitioner answered that they were Monaghan’s entries, that they were made on Monday mornings, and that her husband had seen the entries made. She explained that her husband had been at homo on the Monday mornings, when he was ill or when the weather prevented him going to work. She strenuously protested that every signature was Monaghan’s. “ May I drop dead this minute if they aren’t Monaghan’s,” she said. She admitted that at that time bankrupt was drinking heavily, but he was always drinking. She further admitted that she had been convicted of theft, but said she could explain that. * Mr Lundon; Never mind about explanations now. I will explain to you. Witness: I will explain. You can’t have things all your own way. When Monaghan was at Rotorua, she continued, she had paid his solicitor, and when Monaghan came back to Ellerelio eh© had not. gone on paying the so’icitor because ho would not let her. The deed of mortgage provided for a fortnight’s grace only, and she had paid promptly. Mr Lundon: And the interest paid on Mav 6 last was paid promptly? Witness: Yes. I pa'd that out of money T made at the Easter meeting. lam quite sure.

Mr Lundon: Then how is it that the receipt shows that that money was not paid until July. Witness ; It wan paid on May 6. Tho Official Assignee: Oh, no. The date is quite clear. Why did you ©ay it was paid on May 6. Witness: 1 don't know. Mr London: it is had enough to have Sc; n convicted of theft; it will bo worse to be convicted of perjury. “Don't you cal!'mo a thief,” said Petitioner angrily, shaking her umbrella at Mr Lundoij. Mr Lundon: All these signatures are in Monaghan’s own writing? Witness: They are. I can’t write myself. Mr Lundon: Now, there is an entry of £22. When did you pay that? Witness: You can seo for yourself. There it is. It is plain enough, December 23. Mr Lundon; So you can read if you cannot write. Witness : I can write my own name. Mr Lundon: This £22 was paid out of your winnings at tho Christmas meeting? Witness: Yes. Mr Lundon then pointed out to witness that the Christmas meeting did not commence until after December 23. the date cn which she stated she had made the payment. Witness: You put tho idea about tho race© into my head. Mr Lundon: So much for your yarn about winning at the Christmas races. Your husband earns only £3 per week and your son 15s, and yet you pay off £22 on Christmas Eve. Is it not a fact that you paid £2 and that an extra “2” was tacked on? The Official Assignee: It certainly looks to me as if "an extra figure had been added on. Witness: I swear on my bended knees that it is not no. Mr Lundon: Monaghan says lie was paid only £2 and that the letters “ W.M.” on tho second receipt stamp are forged. Witness; it is not true. Mrs Danzey further stated that if she had not taken tlio book from Monaghan ho would have s’gnod his name all tho way down tho page. Mr Lundon: And then you would write the various amounts yon claimed to have paid alongside tho signatures. Witness: Tho signatures are genuine. Mr Singer here said that the assignee would get no further in this way. Mr Fisher stated that Mr Lundon had a counter-claim, and that lie us Official Assignee had to make a reasonable examination. There were one or two things in connection with the receipt book that ho d'd not like at all. Mr Singer: All of Monaghan’s Ixioks are like that. Mr Fisher said that he felt inclined to let Monaghan take further action if he wished. Mr Singer pointed out that bankrupt had already had three months and his client had been compelled to wait long enough for tho money.* Monaghan would have to prove absolute fraud before ho could succeed against, tho petitioner. Mr Fisher stated that ho would make no ofdcr for a week, and no date was fixed for tho resumption of the proceedings. To this Mr Singer agreed.