CARRIER FAILS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19672, 14 December 1933, Page 14

CARRIER FAILS

DEFICIENCY OF £3l MEETING OF CREDITORS A meeting of creditors in the bankrupt estate of Bruce William Patrick, carrier, of Hilton, was held at the Courthouse yesterday, the official assignee (Mr W. Harte) presiding. Bankrupt was represented by Mr G. J. Walker. The deficiency in the estate was shown as £3l 19s. The amount owing to unsecured creditors was £237 19s and that to secured creditors £384. The estimated value of securities was £4OO. The stock-in-trade consisted of two motor lorries held under a hire purchase agreement, and book debts were estimated to produce £l5O. There was a surplus of £l6 from securities in the hands of secured creditors, and the amount earned under a school contract to date was £4O. Bankrupt's Statement. In his sworn statement, bankrupt said that he oommenced a carrying business at Hilton near Geraldine about six years ago. He purchased a one-ton truck under a hire-purchase agreement. Later he traded in this truck for a four-cylinder truck, and as his business increased and as he was making steady progress he found it necessary to purchase a six-cylinder truck which cost him, with interest on purchase money, approximately £4OO. He had just completed paying for this truck about January. 1933, when it was run down by a motor-car on the Pleasant Point road and the truck was completely wrecked. Unfortunately. the insurance cover had run out two days previously. Bankrupt took action in the Supreme Court against Messrs Priest and Holdgate Limited, the owners of the car which collided with the truck, also against the trustee in the estate of William Russell Priest, deceased, William Russell Priest being the driver of the car. He succeeded in his claim against the estate, judgment beipg given in his favour for £220 and costs. Judgment was given against bankrupt in his claim against Messrs Priest and Holdgate Limited. The trustee in the estate had failed to pay the amount of the judgment he obtained against him. or any part of it, while Messrs Priest and Holdgate Limited had pressed him for the amount of the legal costs in respect of the action taken against the company and he had been finally forced into bankruptcy. His present position was directly due to the loss he had suffered through the destruction of his truck, and the failure of the trustee in the estate of William Russell Priest, deceased, to pay him the amount of the judgment. His position would have been quite sound if he had not suffered this loss.

The Assignee explained that Patrick had been adjudged bankrupt on a creditor’s petition. A debtor’s petition, on the other hand was filed by bankrupt’s own volition. In this case unless Patrick could have met his creditors in full, he had no option in the matter.

It was pointed out by Mr T. H. Langford that as a result of Patrick being adjudged bankrupt Patrick might lose his license and also his livelihood. Those who knew Priest and Holdgate would realise that they were not behind the matter, but that they had been practically forced into filing the petition. If Patrick had been allowed to carry on, he would, the speaker felt sure, have paid his creditors in full, as he was a hard working man. Similar sentiments were expressed by Mr E. Undrill, who said that the people responsible for the petition should have gone more fully into what Patrick’s position would be after bankruptcy. Mr J. Priest said that the firm he represented was obliged to bring the action to keep faith with the insurance company which held the cover. Patrick had not paid the costs amounting to £63 and the firm was obliged to recover them. Mr Langford: They pushed you into it? Mr Priest: Not exactly. Mr Langford: I know Priest and Holdgate. I have dealt with them for 30 years and I know’ that they were not responsible for this. You were pushed into it. w*ere you not? Mr Priest: Not exactly. Mr Langford: Well, you were given a shove? Mr Priest: No, not exactly. Mr Langford: Well, you did not do it yourselves? Mr Priest: No. not at all. Mr G. H. R. Ulrich .said that the lawon the point was clear enough. Priest and Holdgate had no option but to take action. Mr Priest said that a number of people seemed to have secured a w’rong impression of what his firm had done. Priest and Holdgate would never have done anything like that unless they had been obliged to. It was agreed that an opinion as to the worth of the judgment held by the estate against the estate of W. R. Priest be secured from Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Solicitor) Dunedin. On the motion of Mr J. Priest It was decided to allow bankrupt to retain his furniture.

The meeting approved of a recommendation that bankrupt be granted an immediate discharge.