Mexborough and Swinton Times January 4, 1895
Failure of a Conisborough Grocer
A meeting of the creditors of William Henry Smith, Grocer, Draper and Boot dealer, High Street, Conisborough, was held on Monday at the offices of the official receiver, fig tree Lane, Sheffield. Mr J Yates, solicitor, Southport, appeared for executors of the late Mr David Smith
The Official Receiver (Ald W.J.Clegg) said that a receiving order was made on December 6. From the debtor’s statement of affairs it appeared that his unsecured creditors were £359 16s 10d, and creditors partly secured £1,913 19s 6d. This was after deducting the full value of the securities. The total liabilities were £2,273 16s 4d.
He estimated the stock in trade to produce £600, trade fixtures £50, furniture £50, book debts £118 11s 1d surplus some securities 2 pounds making a total of £820 11s 1d
The preferential creditors amounted to £48 leaving £772 11s 1d creditors and costs
The debtor commenced business nine years ago in partnership with his father, and continued until January 1892, when his father and a brother went out of business. The father had since died. The debtor agreed to pay his father £1,500 as a share of the partnership property. He (the Official Receiver) fancied that the whole of the property really belonged to the father, and he handed it over to the debtor on his agreeing to pay the £1,500. He had never paid any of that sum.
On October 30 he made a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and afterwards a bankruptcy petition was presented, and the order made. Debtor had kept no cash book, but his other books for goods sold, daybook and so forth were right. He had on several occasions paid out the bailiffs. Under his father’s will he was entitled to a reversionary interest that he valued at £600 but he (the Official Receiver) did not think they executors valued it at so much.
Mr Yates said that that was the value put upon it by the executors.
The Official Receiver said that being so there was a deficiency of £1,501 5s 2d after deducting preferential creditors. That seemed to be about the all what he had promise to pay to his father. There was no valuation taken at the time of the dissolution of partnership. He had been going on losing and losing, and all he could say as to how it had gone was that he was £800 to the bad about a year ago. He had spent £450 in keeping himself his wife and four children and had lost on bad provisions £100, damages to property and provisions by rats £100, injury to business from family having scarlet fever and German measles £70 and loss occasioned by coal strike £50
Of course these were all guesses – in fact the whole thing, so far as it efficiently was concerned, was simply a guess. There was no books or anything at all to give any clue as to whether he was right or wrong. The debtor’s friends had come forward made an offer to pay the preferential debts in full with costs and 7s 6d in the £ to the other creditors, the monies to be paid out at the expiration of three calendar months from the date of the approval of the composition by the court. This was to be secured on the joint and several promissory note of the debtor and the executors under his father’s will.
Of course the latter did not give the guarantee as executors, but in their individual capacity. Notice had been sent to creditors of the offer and creditors with debts amounting to £1,258 19s 5d were in favour of accepting, whilst four other creditors with debts amounting to about £22 were against the offer being accepted. As it only cried a majority of three quarters of the value there was very great deal more than was required by the Act of Parliament to make it so that the composition could be laid before the court. After the public examination, he should at once apply for the court to sanction the composition
Mr Yates said that there would be £1500 in the business when the father really retired nine years ago, but he did not think there would be that amount the father formally retired two years ago
This closed the meeting