LOCAL CASES IN THE LONDON COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
WEDNESDAY
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.)
RE BUTTERFIELD.
The Petersfield Bank.— The first meeting for the proof of debts and choice of assignees was held this day, under the fiat of bankruptcy issued against Charles Cotten Butterfield, described as of Petersfield, in the County of Southampton, banker, dealer and chapman, trading under the name and style of Butterfield & Co.
Mr. Cruickshank, of Gosport, gentleman, the petitioning creditor, was represented by Mr. EMERY, from the firm of Messrs. Holmes & Co. of New Inn, and Mr. MURRAY, of London-street, appeared on behalf of James Currie, esq. the late partner of Mr. Butterfield.
The circumstances which gave rise to the bankruptcy appear by the official records to be these:—Mr. Cruickshank had been professionally engaged for the bankrupt, and Mr. Samuel Seward, of Weston, Hants, as the co-executors and trustees of George Lear [deceased), a brewer at Petersfield, to prosecute a Chancery suit, and the Lord Chancellor had directed a considerable sum to be paid into Court in the month of July. On the 18th of last month (at half past 4 o'clock in the morning), the bankrupt suddenly left home in his carriage, and stated that he was going to meet his solicitor. He did not return for three days, and as it was found he had taken with him all his clothes, linen, boots and shoes, and other articles, his family became very anxious concerning him. Inquiries were immediately afterwards instituted by Mr. Seward, and that gentleman learnt that he had taken a first class passenger ticket at the Havant Station of the South Coast Railway, but was unsuccessful in tracing him any further. It is stated, however, that he was afterwards seen in London, where he obtained some money. A fiat was issued on the 26th ult. upon the petition of Mr. Robert Cruickshank for a debt of £438 5s 7d, for law costs, and the messenger of this Court has seized twenty books, consisting of ledgers, cash books, waste bill bankers' and letter books, containing entries of the bankrupt's transactions from November, 1844, to July, 1849. As far as can be ascertained, his debts are about £10,000, and the assets will probably amount to £7000 or £8000— viz. a cash balance of about 1500, household furniture and farming stock from 1500 to £2000, and the remainder book debts, bills of exchange, and other securities. The creditors will obtain 20s in the £ if they succeed in fixing Mr. Currie with the liability to make up the deficiency of their demands upon the bank. The bankrupt has not been heard of since the fiat was opened, and unless he appears and surrenders before the next meeting (25th Sept.), he will be proclaimed an outlaw.
Mr. EMERY handed in a proof for £629 18s 4d, on behalf of Mr. Charles Parr, of Sheet, against the estate of the bankrupt and Mr. Currie.
Mr. MURRAY said this was a proof against the joint estate, and the gentleman named in it was a dormant partner of the bankrupt's up to the 3rd of April last, when a dissolution of partnership took place, which was regularly gazetted and advertised. Mr. Parr sought to prove for £600 odd balance of £1020 18s 4d against both parties, but he (Mr. Murray), on behalf of the solvent partner, objected to the admission of the proof, inasmuch as it would affect the interests of the creditors of the joint estate.
Mr. EMERY admitted there had been a dissolution of partnership in April, but no notice of it had been given to his client, and therefore he was entitled to prove against both the partners. He begged to ask Mr. Murray whom he represented?
Mr. MURRAY replied the solvent partner.
Mr. EMERY—Then by your presence you admit his liability.
Mr. MURRAY said at the time of the dissolution Mr. Parr was really a debtor to the bank in the sum of £92, but on the 19th of July (above three months afterwards), he unfortunately paid into the bank a considerable sum of money, which left him a creditor of Mr. Butterfield's for the balance now claimed.
Mr. EMERY—You admit that no notice of the dissolution was given to Mr. Parr beyond the advertisement in the London Gazette?
Mr. MURRAY—l am not here to be examined. l am only stating the facts, and I say your Honour cannot admit that proof in its present form without further inquiry.
His HONOUR—When was the money paid in?
Mr. MURRAY—On the 19th of July, and the fiat was issued on the 26th.
His HONOUR—l don't think I can admit the proof at present.
Mr. EMERY—Mr. Parr is here, and willing to be examined.
His HONOUR—l don't think I can admit the proof at present.
Mr. EMERY—Very well. We are willing to let it stand over for the most searching inquiry; but do you not think we are entitled vote in the choice of assignees?
His HONOUR—Yes, I think the party is entitled to be let in to vote. He is a creditor either against the joint or separate estate, that is not disputed, and I think he should not be shut out from having a voice in the appointment of the assignees. I will admit the proof for the purposes of to-day, subject to my opinion here-after whether it shall be admitted against the joint or separate estate.
Mr. CRUICKSHANK—l hare a number of proofs under similar circumstances, but as we have agreed upon the assignees, we can confer together hereafter and adjust the claims.
Mr. EMERY—l have also a great many more, but shall not press them now, as I am satisfied to await your Honour's decision.
The following proofs were then admitted :— Mr. Samuel Seward, of Weston, gentleman,£429 1s 1d; Mrs. Hannah Lipscombe, Petersfield, widow, £469 14s 11d; Mr. Robert Cruickshank, Gosport, gentleman, £438 5s 7d; Capt. Edward Harris Butterfield, R.N. Petersfield, £171 14s 5d; and Mr. John Small, of Petersfield, mercer, £30 14s 10d.
Mr. Samuel Seward, Mr. Charles Parr, and Mr. Richard Gale, of Horndean, Southampton, merchant, were chosen assignees, and, having accepted the trust, the further proceedings were adjourned until the 25th of September next, at half-past eleven o'clock.