The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-07-03

contention that the claims should
| participa in such dividend.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD, CD.
This is an appeal from Hon. III. e.
Cooper, Judge of the Circuit Court
First Circuit sitting in bankruptcy
wherein, on the petition by the
| Assignee for his discharge, he held
that the claims of All Mi and Quong
Fung of Wailuku, Maui, were filed
subsequent to the declaration of the
first dividend of the estate and did
not participate therein, but the
| Assignee having failed to object to
the validity of the claims (when pre-
sented) they are entitled to share in
the final dividend. The Circuit
Judge approved the accounts of the
Assignee and ordered his discharge
upon filing receipts by the creditors
of the final dividend.
The Circuit Judge found the fol-
lowing facts in the case:
John. Richardson was adjudged
bankrupt on December Is. 1891, and
Monday December %, was set for
the creditors to prove their claims
and elect an assignee; at which time
L. A. Thurston was elected assignee.
Notice to creditors was published in
the Hauaitan Gazette December
22nd aud the return Of the Marshal
endorsed upon the list of creditors
pnows that notices were mailed to
creditors on the 10th Of December
1891.
Among the creditors appearing on
the list are Quong Fung and All Mi.
Ga March 22nd, 1892, the assignee
declared dividend Of 1886 per cent.
amounting to S5,656 81. Previous to
declaring this dividend, MIR. Thurs
ton wrote 20 All Mi, notifying him
that he was about to declare divi-
dend and calling attention to the
fact that he had not proved his claim
and enclosed special power OF at
| torney for him to sign, authorizing
the proof of his claim. Mr.. Thurston
received no reply to this letter but
computed and allowed a dividend
MO- the 5000, claim mentioned in the
| list of creditors, although the claim
! hsd not been filed up to the time the
dividend was declared. The claims
OF an MI duo SuobS unS W.
proved on the Oath day of March,
1892, two days after the dividend
! had been declared"
On tue appeal, counsel for the OPP,
posing credi ors, ". V. Ashford
E.q did no5 contfovert any OF the
facts found by the bankruptcy
court, but suggested that the evl
dence of the creditor All Mi that he
had received no notice of the bank
ruptcy Of Richardson or that he was
required to prove the claim should
be considered as reasons why the
strict requirements of the statute
should be relaxed in his favor, and
be be admitted to participate in the
first dividend. Against this is the
admission of All Mi that he received
| the assignee's letter of March Bird,
| 1892, and signed the form of power
of Attorney enclosed by the Assignee
and sent them to his attorney In
Honolulu, supposiDg that they re
ferred to a private assignment for
the benefit of creditors made some
time previous by Richardson to Mr..
Thurston. The attorney then sent a
power of attorney back to his clients
and on their return to Honolulu filed
the claims, that of All Mi being for
the $500 and a large additional
amount But this was done on the
oath of March, the dividend having
been declared two days previous, the
Assignee having waited from the 3rd
TO the 22nd of March The Assignee
was not required 10y the statute &c
give further notice to his creditor &c
prove his claim, but seeing the claim
for 5000 to An Mi on the sworr
sch, dnle flied by the bankrupt
thought proper to do SO. This IL
diligence, however, creates no ground
for further indulgence on the part o1
the Assignee, reasonable time hav-
ing elapsed in which the creditor
, might have proved his claim. The
claim of Quong Fupg stands upor
the same footing.
, We find no reason for reversing Of
modifying the order of the bankrupt
cy Court aud it therefore stands auo
the appeal is Oh missed.
, V. V. Ashford for creditors; Garter
& Carter for Assignee
Honolulu, June 26. 1894.