IN BANKRUPTCY

Woodville Examiner, Volume XXXV, Issue 5275, 27 March 1918, Page 2

IN BANKRUPTCY

Estate of Reeves and Williams A. meeting of creditors in the estate of Reeves and Williams was held in the Woodville Courthouse on Monday, Mr N. L. Gurr, Deputy Official Assignee, presiding. Mr H. Gifford Moore and Mr W. A. Lyon, solicitors, were present, and also a large number of creditors. Mr Gurr gave a full report of the proceedings in the Supreme Court at Dunedin, The first case was D. 0 A. v. Patterson Bros and Mrs Reeves for recovery of the Chatton property with coal mine attached. These properties, he stated, had been gained to the estate bub the adjustment of accounts had been reserved by Mr Justice Sim. The other two cases were G. B. and J. B. Patterson v. the D. 0. A. , motions for orders compelling the D. 0. A. to reverse his decisions rejecting their proofs of debt, in which judgments were also reserved by the Judge. Since the hearing of them, however, one of the petitioners, Mr G. B. Patterson, had intimated his wish to withdraw his application. He, (Mr Gurr) through his solicitor, (Mr Finch, of Dunedin) had inti, mated, however, that he would not allow the withdrawal of one petition unless all were withdrawn. During the hearing of this case further complications had come to light, regarding which more would be heard. Mr W. Wright, representing the creditors, had accompanied him during these investigations and had made further enquiries into the Chatton property, a farm of 875 acres near Gore, also the coal mine comprising 38 acres, adjoining. The coal mine presented another tangle which might lead to further litigation. Mr H. Gifford Moore then addressed the meeting, and gave a lengthy history of tha cases now before the Court. He stated that all had been done by the D. 0. A. and himself that could be done, but unfortunately many of the decisions had been reserved. He felt sure that the cases would result in favor of the creditors and that those brought against the D. 0. A. would be thrown out. Mrs Williams had not yet settled, but a certain amount had been paid by the sale of her property. Mr T. H. G. Lloyd had paid the costs given against him in the case Murphy v. D 0. A. H a , (Mr Gifford Moore) considered the estate would pay a fair dividend in spite of the lengthy litigation, in which the creditors had been moat successful, not having lost one case. In conclusion he made reference to the resignation of Mr Gurr as D.O. A., stating that if he was allowed to do so at this stage it would be most fatal to the estate. He considered that some effort should be made to persuade him to remain in office until after a settlement of the cases how pending and awaiting judgment. Mr W. Wright said the creditors must retain Mr Gurr at any cost, even if they had to pay him something extra. It would take months for a new man to get into the work. Mr Lyon also expressed the opiniou that Mr 'Gurr should retain the office of D. 0. A , as no one could take up the work where he would drop it. He moved “ That this meeting of creditors in the bankrupt estate of Reeves and Williams is strongly of the opinion that owing to the complicated nature of the transactions it would be very much to the detriment of the estate to have any change made in the office of D.O.A. until this estate is finally wound up ; and this meeting therefore strongly urges the Minister of J ustice to allow Mr Gurr to continue in charge of this estate for a further period of three months.” The motion was seconded Mr W. Wright, carried unanimously, and a petition to the Minister to the effect indicated was signed by all the creditors present. Mr L. Dobbyn and Mr J. Andrews, who had strongly supported the motion, proposed a vote of confidence in Mr H. Gifford Moore, which was also carried unanimously. In conclusion Mr Moore explained matters concerning the estate before it came into bankruptcy. This was favorably received, and a full statement of the accounts "Will be ' rendered.