TIMARU BANKRUPTCY CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3117, 10 December 1913, Page 30

TIMARU BANKRUPTCY CASE.

CLAIM BY OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE. CHRISTCHURCH, December 5. The case of s the Ofiicial Assignee in the estate of Walter Shaw, formerly a iimaru so.icilor, against the limaru Property Company, was coivtnmed in Hie Supreme Court to-day. The principal s witness examined for tho defence was Uoorge Raymond, K.C., senior partner of the firm of Raymond, Raymond, and Campbell (iimaru), and of Raymond and Stringer (Christchurch), who said that between -May, 1912, and the bankruptcy of Shaw he had had only one business interview with Shaw relating to the matter. .Witness told Shaw that Trevurza complained that lie could not get a proper account from Shaw, and that Trevurza wanted a settlement. Shaw said that ho had been very neglectful of Trevurza’s business and was extremely blamable. He had been overworked, was understaffed, and had allowed his legal business to get behind. Witness told Shaw that TTevurza’s account must be got. Shaw said he was very glad Trevurza had come to witness’s firm, as his neglect of Trevurza’s business was a sort of nightmare to him. Shaw did not say that Trevurza owed him from £IO,OOO to £II,OOO, and no sum w f as mentioned as the amount of tho indebtedness. Shaw did not mention that he had been receiving money on deposit. Witness did not suggest that Shaw was frightened or invite him to make a clean breast of it. Witness did not suggest that investigation should take place at Mr Imrie’s office, and did not say that lie would see if he could finance Shaw early in October. William Raymond put a proposal before witness to purchase properties subject to mortgage, and also some second mortgages owned by Trevurza. Witness did not entertain the proposal for a moment, on the ground that lie would not buy from a client. Lurie, saw witness and suggested that Irmie should form a syndicate to purchase Trevurza’s property, and it seemed to witness that tho purchase of equities by tho company was the host thing for Trevurza. Witness had no concern with the preparations of any of the options or agreements. Witness did not know the contents of the agreement of December -21* on which ho was not consulted. Tic learnt that tho property company was making arrangements * with Shaw and Trevurza, and the latter speaking to him expressed pleasure at the fact that the matter was being thus settled. Witness then noticed no mental debility about Shaw. At a meeting, of Shaw’s creditors on April 15 witness insisted that Shaw should file, though the majority of the creditors were in favour of his nob filing. To Mr Myers : Witness knew that advances had been made to Trevurza by Shaw, but not on what terms. \\ itness learnt in October that tho amount was £11,090, the hulk being moneys said to bo advanced by Shaw to Trevurza. Witness knew that Shaw bad started with practically no capital and he had been in business only a few years, but it did not occur as strange that Shaw should not have been able to advance such a largo sum, as it was known that Shaw bad been exceptionally successful. Witness did not know that ‘Shaw was receiving deposits. Shaw never gave witness to understand that Trevurza’s account was giving him trouble, but that bis comnlete neglect of Trevurza’s business troubled him. The case will be resumed to-morrow. December 7. The case of the Official Assignee in tho estate of Walter Shaw, formerly a Timaru solicitor, against the Timaru Property Company, on a claim to set aside the contract of sale, was concluded at the Supreme Court yesterday. Judgment was reserved.