PARTNER BANKRUPT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 812, 5 November 1929, Page 14

PARTNER BANKRUPT

CONTRACTOR FOR 40 YEARS LIQUIDATION PROPOSAL A bankrupt member of a partnership of 40 years’ duration, William HenVy Craig, contractor, of Newton, met his creditors this morning before the official assignee, Mr. A. W. Watters. The majority of the creditors represented claims against the partnership of Craig Brothers, and a decision was made to hold a meeting this week, privately, to discuss the position further. In his statement Craig explained that the partnership was finishing up with two contracts. Whether or not there would be a dividend of 20s in the pound for the creditors depended on the realisation in the estate. It appeared there would be nothing for the partners. Mr. Watters commented that Craig’s private estate would probably not yield anything. Continuing, the assignee suggested the holding of a further meeting for the creditors, with the assignee’s consent, to appoint a liquidator of the partnership. Craig gave as his assets book debts valued at £IOO. With debts to unsecured creditors, £452 5s sd, there was a deficiency of £ 302 5s sd. A statement read by Mr. Watters said the estimated liabilities concerned in the partnership of Craig Brothers were £5,968 8s 3d. Mr. Watters explained that the meeting was primarily that dealing with Craig’s private estatS Explaining his position, Craig, who was represented by Mr. Glaister, said he was working foreman in the partnership of Craig Brothers. In June, 1928, there were assets of several thousand pounds in the firm against his share, on which 'he had overdrawn considerably. He became concerned in a bank guarantee of £3OO to put into a business for clothing manufacture—which was a complete failure—in addition to the money drawn against his share in the Craig Brothers partnership. He persuaded his wife to lodge title deeds of her property with a bank so he could borrow £950. All this he put into another clothing firm. When it went into liquidation the bank required payment of the overdraft. Examined by the assignee, Craig said his half interest in the first clothing firm was embarked on as a sideline. Mr. Watters gave it as his view that thei'e should be a substantial dividend from the partnership. Questioned by Mr. Julius ITogben, for the petitioning creditor* Craig said he had not received a penny from the clothing concern. “Instead,” he said, “I was the pigeon and I was plucked.”