The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Saturday, October 4, 1890. A FRUITLESS CONTEST.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 514, 4 October 1890, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Saturday, October 4, 1890. A FRUITLESS CONTEST.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou alm'st at be thy country's, Thy God's, and truth’s,

News reaches us from Napier of what appears to be a very strange proceeding indeed. Our readers are well aware Mr W. Brassey has become bankrupt at Napier. Tbe fact is unique in its way, inasmuch as the bankrupt has not received his discharge from a former bankruptcy which occurred at Gisborne some two and a-half years ago. On that occasion a resolution was passed by the creditors, that the bankrupt’s discharge should be opposed, unless he paid twenty shillings in the pound. However the debtor was allowed to carry on his business as usual, and later on removed that business to Napier. Numerous debts were incurred in Napier, and once again the debtor was forced to seek the protection of the Bankruptcy Court. Now we have no sympathy with those men who live in luxury and extravagance, and then shirk the payment of their lust debts, and it may be that the conduct of a debtor, who is twice bankrupt within three years, calls for strict scrutiny, and, if he is in fault, he should be made to pay the penalty. But if a debtor has duties which he should perform towards his creditors, so creditors have duties, one to another, cast upon them, and if the proceeding we are about to call attention to, is instigated by creditors, we can only term it inequitable and unreasonable. It appears that the Deputy Official Assignee in the Gisborne bankruptcy has laid claim to the estate which should go towards paying the Napier creditors. It is argued that Brassey, being an undischarged bankrupt, all property which he obtains, until his discharge, techni-

cally vests in the Assignee. This may be law, and very proper law too. But

it does seem unreasonable that the Assignee should allow a man to work at his profession, without let or hindrance, and should then drop upon that part of the assets which should go towards paying those who had supplied the means of sustenance while he was so

working. We cannot believe that if a bankrupt is allowed to use certain property as his own, and parts with it, receiving ready money, that the law would compel the purchaser to hand over the property to be paid for, to the Assignee. Nor can we comprehend that, when that property conies into the hands of the second Assignee, as the representative of the creditors, who, by supplies of food and otherwise, assisted the debtor to procure it, he should be forced to relinquish. This view of the case has also, we ! understand, been taken up by the solicitor for the second Assignee, while, we presume the Gisborne Assignee is acting under legal advice in taking the opposite view. And this is the deplorable part of the whole business, that the estate should, as we suppose it must, if both parties continue of their respective opinions, be frittered away in litigation. Such a condition of affairs calls for public comment. It is well known that the estate will in no case yield the Napier creditors any appreciable dividend (if any), and we should certainly say the Gisborne creditors, who never expected to get anything at all out of the estate, should let the Napier creditors have the benefit of what is justly theirs, whatever the law may appear to say. The most Gisborne creditors might ask for would be to share equally. If there is any money in the Gisborne estate, let it, instead of being sunk in law costs, be divided among the creditors. They will thus save something for themselves and will not deprive the Napier creditors, assuming it can be done, of what little consolation they may have. The first loss is always the easiest loss, and we hope that the Gisborne creditors, whoever they may be, whb'are moving in the matter may be induced to take a reasonable view of it and not treat the Napier creditors unfairly. As for the bankrupt himself we do not suppose he deserves any consideration in the matter, save that it must be to his interest to see that his estate is not squandered in law.