CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 10602, 30 April 1896, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

» (We are not retponsible for ths oplnloo* sxpresseA by oorretpondent* Tha writer's n»me, v * guarantee of good ftitb. mtut be enclosed in tbr letter,] DEPUTY OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF H. MEHAFFY V. C. E. MAJOft TO THE KDITOB Sir, — Hearing in your town many incorrect reports as to the result of this ciwsjl desire to record the actual facts :— Trie j4*s}gt>ee instituted proceedings against me. i 1. To set aside as fratfd'u'feftt «td>oid a tra£rf er from Mehaffy to me ofV nYort gage from John Melville t* Mebaffy to secure £800. 2. That the endorsement by Mehaffy to me of a promissory note for £255, made by John Melville in favor of Mehaffy, wfes ffaadtJlant and void as against tbe Assigned. 9. TM6 UU itisitiiment Jo writing, executed by" MSKa^iftt njy fevor, transferring tho horse JfJghifn'gSte to me, should be declared fraudulent flfla vCiaas against the Assignee . I never claimed that the transfer of mortgage and promissory note for £255 faad.any 6#esfc other than to secure to me, subject and aft&F fche i first mortgage to one Majctf T'ayJor) fSpAfthSab of the i advances' dtrtr (smd indeed to 6kpn%e whether iffy pbßf Sftta wste tHafc tfi etoiired creditor for my advances,' or' that 1 ttas absolute transferee of the njorijjs'ge wonld have been idle, for the land whereon the mortgage was given in no event will I pay 'the first mortgage and my claim) by Mettafy to me, bat inasmuch as the Assignee ac'sf !ra Jeftal adviser made no claim upon mo before oKSJota (axcfipt for return of Nightingale) I, of coWs"e,< bad no opportunity of informing my oppon&Si? of my position. Still noting that the Assignee claimed the transfer of mortgage was absolutely fraudulent and void it cannot fee 1 suggested the Assignee was ever willing Id H'enl ihti transfer as a security fo)* tHti Hibtrtixit tff" Mehatif'* debt to me. •RegCTaing'NfgmftYgSi'e tfce .pftsiticffl Was brWty thffi ;— Mehaffy was in t+oflb!e,Mr Fantham harin§ idsffect S \f attract for his arrest for a debt of! about J?rett .He came to me, and after much negotiation 1 consented to endorse his promissory note to' Mr Fantham in consideration of Mehafly transferring Nightingale to me. This wfts done, and a sale note executed. Tug UHlikf w'aa argent, and the solicitor acting for Mr Faltrttettt prepared the »ale note and advised nic tfrg^ittly to st once obtain possession of Nightingale. 1j now ever, understanding that no one etsfa was pressing Mehaffy, ?nd indeed I belief ed then his other liabilities were very small, did not follow the advice (I now wish I had), but allowed Mehaffy to keep the hone till after the Stratford Races, a few days thence; but between the time of the signing of the sale note and before Mehaffy brought me the horse, which he did on the day following the Stratford Races, a petition in bankruptcy was presented against Mehaffy. Tho case Assignee v. me in due course, came on for hearing, and after lasting one day my counsel advised me that tho effect of my delaying to get Nightingale into my possession might legally make good the Assignee's claim to the horde. That the question writf dotibtfni, since 1 was acting innocently and without knowledge of liis" pdsitio'n; afid Iti proof of tbfa, as ray cdtinsei pointed 1 ffut,- woftld 1 haVo been likely to' endorse bis bill to Fanihtin^lfad I been aware of iris position; And,- qote,' it was theft it was arranged Nightingale should be for■warded id rife inimediately after the fttratford races,- anti counsel advfced tfait since my oppouont had entirely failed! to' show the transfer of mortgage was fraudulent and void or impeaohable as security for 'my advances, that the Assignee and his advisers would probably be glad to sava even a small sum, and that to save further costs which in my case were heavy, and costs of appeal, it would bo better for my pocket to settle — better even than winning an appeal. My reply was to immediately place myself in my counsel's hands and a compromise was arrived at, whereby I paid £50 and £5 5s towards costs, the Assignee discontinuing all procc« lings against me, and waiving all claim to the property ha claimed including Nightingale. At tho trial the Assignee apparently abandoned all claim to the horse-gear, no questions were put to either Mehaffy or me in the witness box on the subject, and that the transfer of mortgage and p.n. should be treated as securities for the amount of my claim against Mehaffy, and thus ended the action wherein the whole machinery and paraphernalia of the Assignee, his advisers, the Court and the jury, had been engaged. My sole fault (proved by the result) was that I did not take Nightingale when advised, my reason for this doubtless all see now, was a foolish one, it was to allow Mohaffy the pleasure of once racing the horse he was so fond of ; understand, had I chosen, I could have had the horse the day the sale note was signed, my action in allowing Mehaffy to keep her longer was an act of grace on my parr, it was no term of the contract between Mehaffy aud me. — I am, &c, C. E. Major. A BRIEF SAY. TO THE EDirOR. Sir, — I have always held that, as a rule, prohibitionists have not given the subject of inherited proclivity due thought. It is only by carefully investigating into the influence of such that the likeliest, nearest guess of what may be can be made. Those who are disinclined to hold with tho principle of national prohibition prognosticate that should such a system at any time become law there would arise therefrom one of tho most serious fiascos that ever any Government had to confront. Then, why not adopt a more rational, a moro prudent, and more praotical line of regeneration ? — I am, &0., Y.Z.