Untitled

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue XXII, 21 November 1867, Page 3

We print two letters from Mr Borlase and Mr Edward Bull, which maybe dealt with very briefly. Mr Borlase says he did not give the legal opinion which we have attributed to him, " but he argued that the facts as proved showed that Mr McCarthy had accepted Mr Parsons as his debtor in the place of Messrs Bull." Mr Borlase certainly did argue this — and wrongly — because the facts as proved showed nothing of the sort. No part of the evidence proves that the plaintiff McCarthy over released the Messrs Bull from their liability, or made any agreement to accept a third party as his debtor in their stead. The plaintiff was willing to receivo his money from any one who would pay him, but he pointedly denied having given any release to the Messrs Bull. But Mr Borlase went further than he now alleges. Having first contended that McCarthy had accepted Parsons as his debtor, he theu said — we quote the short-hand report — • " that if a creditor asked for payment of his account of a person to whom his debt had been transferred by the original debtor, it was sufficient legal proof that he had accepted the transference of the liability ; and this had boon shown in the present instance. He would refer the Court to " Ohitiij on Substitutions" as authority." There is no doubt of the accuracy of tho report, and we can only accouut for tho erroneous nature of the " opinion," or argument —we Avill not quarrel about a word — by supposing that Mr Borlase had his usually clear judgment biassed by an over-anxiety to do the best ho could for his client. We have not said one word to prejudice the case of Mr Borlase's clients. We simply argued that tho decision of the Magistrate appeared to be i in accordance with law and common sense ; while we combatted a doctrine which, if upheld, might in other cases open a door for the practice of fraud. Mr Edward Bull, according to his own story, is the innocent victim of adverse circumstances. Ho tells us that he transferred tho business to Parsons, firmly believing in the will and ability of that gentleman to pay the debts of Messrs J. & E. Bull — ho adds that Parsons realised the assets but did not discharge tho liabilities — and therefore appeals to us now to saj r whether his repudiation of McCarthy's claim is criminal, or only tho result of hardship ? Under such circumstances, Mr Bull thinks we have " unusually," " unwarrantably," and " ungenerously" dealt with his case, by making " specious statements and comments" about it ; and ho therefore writes his letter, not for the benefit of his Wellington creditors — who, as he says, properly appreciate his financial intogrity — but for that of pcoplo at a distance, who might through our agency be led into error. Mr Edward Bull does us a great injustice. Wo have u-ever uttered, or written, or printed, a single Avord either against him or the late firm of which ho was a partner. Our remarks were directed against a legal doctrine which, if established, Avould in its general application make rogues chuckle and honest men Aveep. Wo combatted that doctrine as being unsound alike in point of law and in point of fact, and we supported tho decision of the Resident Magistrate which upse^it. It is not true that Ave ever commented upon the case at all beforo it Avas heard, and Ave have yet to learn that it is unusual to comment upon a decision of the Bench. In many respects Mr Edward Bull has not made an accurate statement. The history of the case is exceedingly simple — tho facts connected with it clear and indisputable. Messrs J. &E. Bull OAved their overseer £36, and did not pay him.

They owed other people money and did not pay them. Certain secured creditors had bills of sale over the plant of their newspaper, so with the consent of those creditors the business was handed over to Parsons, who became responsible for its liabilities. This transfer was made without the minor creditors ever having previously been consulted at all. The latter, seeing that their debtors had divested themselves of their property, naturally enquired of Parsons if he would pay them, and were rewarded with nothing but empty promises. They now want their money, and can't get it, either from Messrs Bull or from Mr Parsons. Mr E. Bull tacitly admits that he was guilty both of folly and negligence in handing over the business to Parsons, who had only £230 — not in cash, but to draw upon — but we say thai under the circumstance, lie, while owing more than £1400, should, in the interest of his creditors, have, satisfied himself before making the transfer that Mr Parsons possessed the means to -pay the debts for which he had rendered himself liable, if the creditors of Messrs J. and JE. Bull chose to hold him so. Mr Edward Bull talks as if at the time of the transfer he was entirely unembarrassed. If this were the case, how comes it that he did not pay his overseer a paltry debt for wages of £36 ? — how comes it that at least twelve of his employees had claims against him for arrears, which to this day are unliquidated — -to the sore distress of men who have wives aud families to support? Mr Edward Bull forces us to ask those questions ? He has appealed to the tribunal of public opinion, aud we are compelled to justify our remarks. We have hitherto said nothing against him, and we will not begin now. But this much we may quote, as applied to the relations of creditors and their debtors, by. an eminent writer, Mr Mill, " that to have been trusted with money or money's worth and to have lost or spent it, is prhna facie evidence of something wrong ; and it is not for the creditor to prove, which he cannot do in one case out of ten, thai there has been criminality, but for the debtor to rebut the presumption by laying open the whole state of his affairs, and showing either that there has been no misconduct, or that the misconduct has beeu of an excusable kind." Can Mr Edward Bull show that at the time ol making the transfer to Parsons he had not either lost or spent a portion of the money or money's worth with which he had been entrusted by his creditors, and can he also show that there was no neglect of their interest displayed in handing over their property without proper enquiry to a man of straw ?