BUSINESS FAILURE.

Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17711, 15 May 1929, Page 7

BUSINESS FAILURE.

LABOURER’S DIFFICULTIES.

EX/VMINED BY CREDITORS. A DEFICIENCY OF £146. An unsuccessful second-hand shop venture was responsible for Horace Moyle’s examination this morning before a meeting of his creditors. Bankrupt’s schedule showed debts totalling £156 17s 4d, which, 'With hook debts estimated to produce £2O, left a nominal deficiency of £146 17s id.

Bankrupt, in his statement, said he had been labouring all his life, and in June last commenced a second-hand business in Putaruru. lie had entered into an arrangement with the Rotorua Furnishing Company to receive new furniture from them to be sold on a 10 per cent, commission basis. When ho found that things were not paying he returned the stock to the company. All that stock in the shop, which was his own property, he "consigned by rail tb Mr. Cochrane, auctioneer, Rotorua, to be sold. These goods had never reached their destination. He later discovered that ho should have sent them to Cockerel —not Cochrane. He had confused the name. Sirtce Christmas he had done only 12 weeks’ work. Judgment was obtained against him by the Official Assignee in connection with the bankruptcy of Sarich. He had consented to the payment of £1 a month, and being unable to keep up these payments, a warrant for his arrest was issued. He was compelled to file to avoid arrest. He attributed his failure to unemployment since Christmas, and the impossibility, from 12 weeks’ wages, to meet the urgent claims of his--creditors. Mr. McDowell, representing the furniture company, advised the assignee that the goods' were supplied on consignment and were to be sold strictly on a cash basis. Bankrupt did not agree with this, and said that he had instructions to let goods out on account if he desired. Apparently, remarked the assignee, the statements of bankrupt and the Rotorua Furnishing Company did not agree. Bankrupt had, from the viewpoint of the Rotorua Furnishing Company, failed to account for goods supplied on consignment. Bankrupt remained that he had been led to believe that there was a living in the business, but had failed to make anything out of the shop, “ Here is a man,” remarked the assignee, “ knowing nothing of business, and probably would not know what goods on consignment meant.” Mr. McCaw, for Moyle, agreed with the assignee and said it was plainly evident that bankrupt was a man with no business ability, who had no intention of defrauding the furnishing company

Mr. McDowell interposed that the

deficiency of £2O in the book debts did - not coincide with the amount outstanding. His clients were not satisfied with bankrupt’s behaviour and would certainly oppose his discharge under the circumstances.

The meeting concluded with the assignee remarking that before he facilitated Moyle’s discharge he would require bankrupt to satisfy him that he was not in a position to make any payment to his creditors.