Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

11 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



ADJOURNED SINE DIE. Drastic Treatment of Pembroke Dock Bankrupts. OFFICIAL RECEIVES STRONG COM- MENTS. Two Pembroke Dock bankrupts, Thomas Owen Roberts and William Miller, had their public examinations adjourned sine die at Pembroke Dock Bankruptcy Court on Friday, before the Registrar (Mr. S. H. Owen). Roberts was first examined, this being his third appearance. He was again represented by Mr. F. W. Merriman. Bankrupt is a dock- yard labourer, and had also carried on busi- ness as a draper and confectioner in Meyrick- street. His liabilities amounted to Z350 and his assets were nil. Some remarkable state- ments were made by debtor at his previous examinations, and were reported in this paper at the time. In reply to the O.R. (Mr. Thomas Thomas), debtor now stated that he had submitted a sup- plemental account showing the money he had deposited in the bank and the money he had received through the County Court. This showed that lie had received E51 3s. 2d. He had also made payments amounting to £ 50 2s. lid. The O. R.: Why didn't you give the dates in that account of the various payments you made I—Debtor replied that the payments were nearly all made at the time he was in Queen- street. He began to withdraw from the bank in 1903. The O. R. pointed out that debtor's accounts showed the payments were made in April, 1903, Bankrupt could not have withdrawn the money to make the payments, if the pay- ments were made early in 1903, as the money was withdrawn in November, 1903. Debtor re- plied that he had made up the account as best he could from the information given by the bank. He admitted that the account could not be a proper one. The O. R.: Why didn't you furnish a proper account?—I have done so to the best of my ability. It is not an account of the money you re- ceived from the bank, because you made these payments before you received the money from the bank. You admit that is unsatisfactory. It is no account at all of the money you had in the bank ?—No answer. You admit that don't you?—In the face of that I have to. UNSATISFACTORY ELEMENTS. That is another unsatisfactory element in your case. You ha\e furnished a list of the debts collected in the County Court in your name, your wife's name, and Messrs. Harris's name. Is that list correct?—It is according to the information I received from the County Court. You say there are only three debts amount- ing to Pl 18s. 7d. now due?—Yes, sir. Mr. Merriman then questioned bankrupt as to his dealings with Messrs. Harris and Co., and he said that they had extended over eleven years. At the outset a verbal agreement was I entered into that he should receive a 20 per cent. commission on all money he collected for them. During the last few years, how- ever, he had been in the position of customer, and they had supplied him in the ordinary way of trade. The debt of E250 which he had incurred to Messrs. Harris extended over the whole eleven years, but most of it had been incurred during the last few years, owing to people leaving the town and leaving their debts behind them. He had also, on various occa- sions, recovered from customers articles on which payments had not been kept up, and had sent them back to the firm. The Official Receiver: Recovered them in what way?—They could not, or would not, keep up their payments, so I said I must have the goods returned to me. In many instances- in fact, I seldom failed—I had the goods re- turned, and returned them to the firm, but I have been given no credit for them. The Official Receiver: If you were a buyer from the firm, as you allege, why did you return them to the firm 1-Thcy allowed me for the returns, instead of paying cash for the goods. They backed me up in that. It was their way of trading. W hat would you say that amounted to ?— Bankrupt replied that he had recovered scores of articles, but could not say what they had amounted to. In reply to a further question, Roberts said that Messrs. Harris used "sprung prices." He explained that he meant that they would list an article wotth 20s. at 28s. 6d. ANTICIPATION. The Official Receiver: What do you mean- that they overcharged?—I can say nothing more than that at this stage. Do you expect another stage, then?—I do not know what you are going to do. The Registrar asked Mr. Merriman what was the object of his examination, and Mr. Merri- man said that the examination of the Official Receiver went to show that his instructions were that Roberts was an agent for these people, whereas his (Mr. Merriman's) instruc- tions were that the man was no agent at all. Some further questions were put, and bank- rupt said tkat sometimes Messrs. Harris sent him goods without being ordered. The Registrar: Are you trying to show there was reckless trading? Mr. Merriman said that he was trying to point out that Messrs. Harris and Co.'s method of trading was such as to allow a man of this sort-a man of no substance-to get into debt to the tune of k250. The Registrar: I do not think that matters. If they have traded recklessly they must stand the consequences, you see. Mr. Merriman then questioned Roberts about the bad debts owing him, and he said that if he could sue these people he could pay Messrs. Harris. He had offered to assign these debts to Messrs. Harris, and they had replied ae cepting, but no assignment had yet been madr He had sent them a list of the debts Aid tbe last known addresses of the debtors. The Official Receiver: I need not remind you, sir, how very unsatisfactory this case has been from the beginning. Debtor's enduot has been throughout most unsatisfactory. There has been only one SERIES OF PROVOCATIONS from beginning to end. I am sorry to speak so strongly, but I feel strongly in this case. I ask you to adjourn this case sine die. The Registrar: I cannot refuse your pppli- cation, Mr. Receiver. The case, as you say, is most unsatisfactory, and in the mtere ts justice I feel Imust adjourn it sine die. I do not like going to that extreme Ct mse m most cases. MR. MILLER'S AFFAIRS. William Miller, commission agent a-d cut fitter, of Laws Street, Pembroke Dock, then ap- peared for his adjourned examination il. A. Jones Lloyd appeared on debtor's Leha f. and Mr. F. W. Merriman appeared for eeit?;n creditors. The Official Receiver: At your ¡..t ^ a- tion you promised to hand over a CT.'oc.-ng book for the period immediately before Jure, 1907. Why have you not done so?- Pf- Muse they have all been taken possession of. Why wasn't this particular book nailed over? You do not suggest this was with ibe books taken over by Mr. Bowling?—bo far as my knowledge extends. Now, sir, be very careful, will yoi, pierre. You handed over to Mr. Bowling ^'ght li oks? -He took everything in my room. Now are you so disinterested in your cwn »Jw..Kr'.irwii.wlvw — I affairs that you don't know "/hat books All. j Bowling had ?—I do not. He had all my booki. I Will you say whether or not tiais book wis with them?—So far as I know every bjok was there. As far as you know, this book was amongst them?—Yes. Haven't you written to me a very different story to that?—I don't think so. I didn't expect you to deny that. Have you written to say the book was destroyed prior to this?-No, sir. Have you written to me lately?—I have an- swered your questions. About that book?—Yes. Didn't you say in your answer that this book was destroyed because the totals were brought forward into another book?—No; sir. What was your practice when these books were finished 1-1 took no great interest in the books when they were done with, especially the collector's books, because they were no more good to me. NOT GENERALLY PRESERVED. The Official Receiver then read a letter writ- ten to him by MilleT on January 10th, in which he stated that when he had finished with them his collector's books were not generally pre- served.-Pebtor admitted this was correct. The Official Receiver: Very well. Why did you deny that a few minutes ago?—I said that I had never destroyed them to my knowledge. You denied you had written this letter to me?—I did not deny writing. You say the books were not generally pre- served. What became of them if they were not preserved?—I cannot tell you. I took no interest in them. I must press you for an answer. What do you mean. Are you insinuating that Mr. Bowling has taken the books?—He had several books, but I do not know what books. Well, it was to your interest to know?—I asked him, but he would not let me know. Was this particular book I want with them? I have no more books in my possession. In answer to further questions, bankrupt said that all the. books handed over to Mr. Bowling were old books. He admitted that he had previously stated that he had handed over all books of account to the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver: They were books of account -I thought they were no good to anyone. How are you to judge? They were books of account ?—Y ee. Since then you have handed over to Mr. Bowling eight books?—I do not know the number. Is the matter of such indifference. to you that you do not know how many books there were ?—He would not give me time. Have you ever found these pass books that you alleged your little daughter destroyed?— Not one. I have no books in my possession at all. Was it not from these small books that you got the figure:; for your statement of affairs?— No; from my collecting book. You said before that it was from the small books you prepared your statement of affairs ?— Oh, yes; it was the small books. That is right, the small books. Then why did you destroy them ?—I did not destroy them. You allowed them to be destroyed. At the previous examination you said, "I threw down the books and said The Registrar: Is this the story of the books destroyed by the child? The Official Receiver: These amounts are shown in your statement of affairs. These amounts are due to your customers after taking 20 per cent. for collection ?—I think so. The Official Receiver then questioned debtor with regard to his transactions with various tradesmen, for whom he admitted he hajj collected certain sums. He admitted that he had used some of the money collected in his own business, without the authority of the persons to whom they belonged. The OxTicial Receiver then said that it had been reported to him that debtor interrupted the sale of his stock, on January 9th, by ask- ing people not to bid. Debtor: I was present, and I had one or two friends with me. I made a bid, and when people saw me bid they said, "Miller wants his goods back. We will not interfere." Twice that happened with regard to my fixtures. Did you not ask certain individuals not to bid against you?—I did not move off m'y door- step. You know it was your duty to assist in every way the realisation of your estate, instead of which you tried to injure the sale?—I do not think I did. Forgive me, sir. It was not my intention. AN INCIDENT AT THE SALE. Will you swear that you did not in any way interfere with the sale by asking people not to bid? Be very careful, because the people are alive to-day ?—I do not think I asked any- body not to bid. Do you know Mr. Jenkins, of the Swan Inn? -I do. Didn't you ask him not to bid. Did you make any signs to him?—I said, "Jenkins, I should like my fixtures for myself." What is that but asking him not to bid?— It is a very mild form. Didn't you also speak to Mr. Brown, of Upper Gwyther Street?—I don't know the gentleman. Miller was next cross-examined with regard to a bill of sale on some furniture belonging to a man named Wright, of Tenby, which he held. It was for Z35, and he declared that nothing was now due to him. He had re- garded this money as pocket-money, and had not entered it into his cash book because he did not think it necessary. The Official Receiver: Why put anything in the cash book at all?—It was not for goods sold. The Official Receiver: It was for furniture sold. Debtor was then questioned about a valuable snuff-box which had been in his possession. He said that it was not his, but belonged to a lady, whose name he wrote down on a slip of paper, for whom he tried to sell it on com- mission. Mr. Merriman then cross-examined debtor, who said that he could not say what was the value of his stock twelve months ago, and he could not give any idea of the greatest value of stock he had had in his shop at any time. He had handed over everything that belonged to him, including furniture. He had bought his furniture piecemeal as he had required it. The whole of the furniture on his premises had not belonged to him, but Mr. Bowling had had what belonged to him. The rest of the furniture had belonged to his wife. AN INSURANCE MATTER. Mr. Merriman: Would you have had over E20 of furniture five years ago?—Nothing ap- proaching to it. What did you insure it for?—I never insured it. What would you have insured it for?—I can- not answer. Did you insure it?—I insured the house, stock, and furniture. Did you insure the furniture?—I insured everything. What did you insure the furniture for?—I cannot answer that. Did you insure your furniture five years ago for £3001-0h, did I? Did you?—At that time, let me tell you, I had goods belonging to other people in the house, for which I was responsible. In reply to another question, debtor said that he had had oil paintings in his house worth R500, but had not disclosed the value of these paintings to the insurance company.





--_-------__.- -.----.---.-------+…


iimi-.¡-.74:'!"'!I. A Book…

[No title]