Re McCarthy v. BULL.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue XXII, 21 November 1867, Page 4

Re McCarthy v. BULL.

(to the editob of the independent.) Wellington, November 19, 1867. Sir, — The unusual and unwarrantable course adopted by you in commenting on the above case — both before it came on for hearing and while an appeal to a higher tribunal was still pending — constrains me to make a few explanatory remarks, lest those at a distance might be led to believe the erroneous and ungenerous construction which ths Independent ha§ pub upon the matter. A calm perusal of your leading article of (this day's date would lead any unbiassed reader to the belief that the defendant in this case .had been dealing most unjustly towardß one of his employes, and that he was endeavoring to evade a just debt which had been honorably contracted* Such, however, I ana happy to say, is not the case, nor are the deductions you seek to draw, reasonable or sound. When my partner and myself disposed of our business to Mr Parsons, we did so in good faith, and when we handed him over our assets according to agreement, we believed firmly that he was in a position, and would liquidate the liabilities which were set down in contra* distinction to them, and which ho undertook to pay by a deed duly drawn up by Mr Brandon, and signed. It then appears, after the lapse of a few weeks, that while Mr Parsons realised the assets, he did not bestow nearly so much care on those particular liabilities, and that for the most part the latter still remain unliquidated, while the Messrs Bull hare lost the means which they before had of paying them. Is, then, their repudiation criminal, or is it a hardship ? And now a word as to this particular action. When Mr Parsons took the business, ho announced by advertisement that he would receive all debts due, and -would pay all liabilities. To this arrangement no single creditor demurred, and I unhesitatingly assert that oneandall would have readily signed a document relieving their original debtors of all responsibility. They were told by Parsons upon different occasions, that he would pay them on the Ist of the ensuing month, and they accepted that assurance in good faith, and from the date of the disposal of the business to Parsons, neither McCarthy or anyone else ever applied to the original proprietors for their money. What construction would any right-minded man put upon that fact? Perhaps Mr McCarthy's satisfaction terminated when Mr Parsons failed in business, but his previous acquiescence in the arrangement is not denied, and it is established that he hud, until that date, recognised Parsons, as the party to whom he looked for his money — that ho applied to him for payment — that he was perfectly satisßed with assurances — and, what did not come out in evidence, that . he attended a meeting of Parsons' creditors after his failure at Mr Brandon's office. Precisely the same facts apply to nearly all the other creditors of the late firm of J.&E. Bull.

With regard to the inference you seek to drawin your -article, i.e., that consent to such. a. deed as that in question must be in writing, I can only say that when dealing with honorable — ; nay, I would say honest men, it is not usual to bind them down with the useless and expensive machinery to be found in a solicitor's office, and which, when brought into work, only leads ta endless litigation, anxiety and expense. Whatever the law may decide on the subject, in equity the matter is clear, as the business was sold and purchased in good faith, and each and every creditor was fully cognizant of the transaction, and were prepared, and did by personal application accept Mr Parsons in lieu of Messrs Bull. I do not write in order to defend my apparent want of wisdom or negligence in this matter, but rather to explain the affair to those who might unknowingly be led into error by the unaccountable attitude the Independent has assumed, and the specious statements and comments which it has, I trust, with characteristic generosity, and in the " public interest," so industriously promulgated. It is not noble to chuckle flippantly over the misfortunes of a fallen opponent, of whose exist* enco we have only been aware a few weeks, and it is neither generous or manly, knowing well the unrighteousness of the cause which has placed me for the tima in a false and peculiar position, to endeavor, with strange vindictiveness of spirit, on every possible occasion to make the worse phase of the matter appear the better. Were a similar criticism brought to bear on the business and position of the Independent, as has been used by that journal towards the Advertiser and Times, and their respective proprietors — well, people who livo in glass houses, may, perhaps, sometimes throw stones with impunity.

Trusting you will do me the justice of inserting the above in your next ißsue.—l have, <tc, E.DWABD BUIX,