COURT OF BANKRUPTCY
IN RE THOMAS COOKE.
The bankrupt was a cattle-salesman and dealer, of Froxfield, near Petersfield. This was the certificate meeting.
The assignees offered no opposition.
Mr. Chidley supported, and said the bankrupt had incurred losses to the amount of £3,000 by the failure of the hop crop in 1854.
His Honour thought this one of the cases that ought to be discouraged to the utmost. The bankrupt had commenced with a deficiency of £2,500, and went on ‟taking people in” till he increased his deficiency to £3,200. He concurred with the Chief Commissioner that in such a case the bankrupt was not entitled to a certificate at all, and he would wish to see that rule established in bankruptcy ; but, unfortunately, the decisions of the Court of Appeal were adverse to the attempt. In this case he would suspend the certificate for six months from the date of the last examination in January; when granted to be of the third class. Protection granted for three months, to be renewed if no cause is shown to the contrary.
London Evening Standard - Thursday 07 February 1856
BANKRUPTCY COURT, Feb. 6,
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
IN RE COOKE, SEN.
This was an application for certificate by Thomas Cooke, sen., of Steep and Froxfield, near Petersfield, cattle salesman.
Mr. Nicholson, the official assignee, reported the bankrupt’s examination had been adjourned four times for defective accounts. The balance-sheet commenced on the 1st of January, 1854, with a deficiency of 2015l. During one year and two months’ trading, ending at the date of the bankruptcy, February, 1855, the bankrupt had contracted additional debts amounting to 1139l. Creditors holding security, 2565l. ; property held by them, 500l. ; the only other assets given up amounting to 12l. The profits, 133l., had been exceeded by the expenses, the domestic and personal being stated at 407l. The bankrupt’s property had been swept off under an execution a few days before the bankruptcy. The bankrupt had petitioned the county court at Petersfield, but his petition had been dismissed. His books had been loosely kept, and it was found his wife had a life interest in property which was mortgaged.
Mr. Chidley supported, and said the bankrupt had resided in the neighbourhood for 22 years. The bankrupt, finding himself unable to meet his engagements, had petitioned the local county court, but the judge, considering he was not a trader, refused to entertain the petition ; and in the meantime the creditors who levied execution seized property of the value of 1884l., which, after paying these creditors, would have left 1100l. surplus for tho other creditors but for this reckless sacrifice of property. He hoped the court would take Into consideration the time the bankrupt had been in difficulties.
His Honour thought this was one of a class of cases which ought to be discharged to the judgment. The bankrupt had commenced with a large deficiency, and had gone on increasing his debts. What right had a man to rush Into debt when he was hopelessly insolvent, and when without any reasonable expectations of payment ? He (with Mr. Commissioner Evans) considered a man should not be allowed his certificate under such circumstances ; but as the Lords Justices took a more lenient view of the case, he must bow to their decision. Had the bankrupt a right to ask the time should be taken into consideration that he had been before the court, when the delay arose from the bankrupt’s own misconduct ? The certificate (third class) must be suspended six months with protection.