Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-01-25 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY COURT,

it; re ELSDON PRINGLE.—His Honour (Mr. Com-
missioner Perry), delivered judgement in the case of this
bankrupt, whose application for certificate was heard on
Friday last. The judgment was as follows :—This was
an application for the allowance of the bankrupt's
certificate, made by Mr. Deighton, his counsel, and
opposed by Mr. Conway, counsel for Messrs. Kennington
and Chapman, creditors of the bankrupt, who have
proved a debt against his estate to the amount
of £1,871. The bankrupt was a shipowner, and had
contracted with a shipbuilder named Keetley for
the building of a ship called the Maria Needham,
which was to be completed in April, 1857,
and in which the builder had agreed to take twenty-
four shares. Some other friends of Mr. Pringle had
also agreed to take shales, leaving,_ him only eight
shares as his interest in the ship. Unfortunately, the
builder first made an assignment for the benefit of his
creditors, and afterwards became bankrupt. Thus the
principal shareholder in the vessel was unable to complete
his agreement, to take up the shares when the vessel
should be completed ; and consequently Mr. Pringle
would have, by no fault of his own, a much larger ven-
ture cast upon him than he had contemplated engaging
in. Mr. Pringle had paid two several sums of £l,OOO,
in part of the price of the vessel, to the assignees
under Mr. Keetley's assignment, and to the assignees'
under the builder's bankruptcy, Messrs. Kennington and
Chapman, being sureties for the due performance of his
contract by Mr. Keetley, undertook to complete the build-
ing of the vessel, subject to the terms of the original
contract, by which a penalty of 1100 a mouth was to be
payable for the non-completion of the vessel within the
time originally stipulated for. The ship was not com-
pleted for eleven months and a-half after the time
originally. stipulated for, allowing for an extension of time
of one mouth granted by the bankrupt, i.e., until the
17th of April, 1858. The price of the ship was to be
/16 a ton, and there were extras charged by Messrs.
Kennington and Chapman making the whole purchase
money amount to £7,361. The bankrupt having paid
£2,000 to the parties representing Mr. Keetley, paid two
further sums of £5OO each to Messrs. Kennington and
Chapman, which were obtained by mortgaging the ship
to Messrs. Bramley-Moore and Co. In March, 1858,
some disputes arose between the bankrupt and Messrs.
Kennington and Chapman, which were ultimately referred
to arbitration, and an award was made early in the
month of June, by which £1,060 17s 10d was proved to
be due to Messrs. Kennington and Chapman, which,
with costs, amounted to £1,165 10s. On the 7th of
June, Messrs. Kennington and Chapman wrote to Mr.
Ritson, the solicitor of Mr. Pringle, enclosing a copy
of the award, and demanding payment of the amount
found to be due to them. Mr. Pringle was away,
and in an ill state of health. On the 9th of June
Mr. Ritson wrote to Messrs. Kennington and Chap-
man, saying his client was ill, and away from home.
On the 14th of June the writ is issued, which arrives
on the 15th of the same month. Mr. Ritson ap-
peared to the writ for his client, whom he did not
see until the 13th of July, at which time some con-
versation passed about the action, but Mr. Ritson
did not think it right to trouble Mr. Prisgle much,
as he was very ill. He thinks, however, he advised
him to wait until Mr. Welch's opinion had been
obtained, whether to defend the' action or not Time was
therefore obtained to plead, and at last two pleas were put
in, Mr. Welch's opinion not having been yet obtained.
They were ultimately withdrawn, not in accordance with
Mr. 'Welch's opinion, but on account of Mr. Pringle's
position, which rendered it unadvisable to risk the costs of
an action. The penalties due for non-performance of the
ontract, as well as the amount of a bill for extras, were
the subjects of dispute between Mr. Pringle and Mr.
Chapman. I think, upon this state of facts, the defence
pnt in to the action, and subsequently withdrawn,
cannot be regarded in the light of a frivolous
and vexatious defence, which was Mr. Conway's second
ground of objection to the allowance of the bankrupt's
certificate. As to the first ground, that he had been
guilty of fraudulent preference in the instance of his
daughter, to whom he had assigned his furniture on the
17th of June last, as a security for £3OO advanced in
the month of November previous, and after he had,
in March, resigned to her the tenancy of his house ;
and also, that lie had made mortgages of ships, either
after the action brought, the date of which was the
15th of June, or after judgment had been obtained
in the action, which was sometime in the month of
July. In the first place, it is fit that I should mention
that Mr. Pringle was not declared a bankrupt until the
28th of October, 1858, a petition of arrangement pre-
sented by him having failed to be carried out, in con-
sequence of a proposal made for giving to Messrs. Ken-
nington and Chapman an advantage over other
creditors. The bankrupt, therefore, does not come
within the present provisions of the 256th section
of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, which
require a period of not more than two months to
elapse between the fraudulent preference, if any,
and the filing of the petition of adjudication.
I have therefore to consider whether, upon the general
question of conduct, as suggested by Mr. Deighton, and
under the terms of the 198th section, the bankrupt has
rendered himself liable to the censure of this court.
Now, the bankrupt has stated that his daughter had
asked him for security ; had said she must have security ;
and had pressed him for it in the early part of
June, and repeatedly before that. In the cases of
the mortgage of ships, that of the Dove was made on
the 14th of June, before the bankrupt knew of the
issuing of the writ,. and it was given, also, because
Clover and Royle said if the money were not paid they
would break up Mr. Jones, who had given his acceptance
to Messrs. Clover and Royle ; and,at that time the bank-
rupt also believed he was perfectly solvent. As to Fisher's
case, the mortgage was made to him because he insisted
on security, the bankrupt's acceptance being dishonoured,
upon which Fisher was liable. At this time, also, tho
bankrupt had not ascertained the amount for which the
Maria Needham was sold, which was far less than he had
anticipated. This vessel had cost £7,361, and it sold in
August for £3,025. Looking, therefore, at these facts, and
considering that the bankrupt had from ill-health alone lost
a very valuable situation, and that he might well have ex-
pected to realise a much larger sum than he did by the
sale of the Maria Needham, and that much of his diffi-
culties have been occasioned by the tardy completion by
Messrs. Kennington and Chapman of the vessel, the
Maria Needham, I think with Mr. Deighton that he is
deserving rather of the commisseration of the court than
of its censure, and as he did not delay beyond the
beginning of August to submit himself to the jurisdiction
of this court by a petition, which only failed for the
reason I have before mentioned, I think the certificate
must be an immediate one of the second class.