From the Borough of Greenwich Free Press, 30 August, 1856.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY — August 27th.

IN RE SAMUEL NEWMAN.

The bankrupt was a builder and publican, of the "Granville Hotel," Lee, near Lewisham. This was an examination meeting.

Mr. Linklater appeared for the assignees; Mr. Chidley for the bankrupt; and Mr. Lucas for a creditor.

The bankrupt, it may be recollected, was arrested some short time ago for having a loaded pistol in his possession and having intimated his intention to shoot Mr. Bunn, the trade assignee, and was released upon giving bail.

Mr. Linklater asked that Mr. Bunn might be relieved from the duties of assignee. Not being paid to be shot at, he was anxious not to have the honour of being a target.

The bankrupt said he had acted under feelings of great excitement. Mr. Ives was a secured creditor for £6,600, and the claims of the other creditors amounted to only about £400. Having a capital of his own of £4,000 when he entered into an arrangement with Mr. Ives, he was indignant at the way in which his children's beds were being sold under them, and his property improvidently realized. Bricks had been sold for 5s, 6d. per thousand which might have realized 25s. to 27s. 6d. per thousand, the "Granville Hotel," upon which he had expended £1,380, and upon which there was a mortgage of £600, had been sold for £1,000. There was also some most valuable land, of which the best could not be made. He believed that Mr. Ives, acting through Mr. Bunn, his assignee, intended, by the manner in which the sale was conducted, to depreciate the property for a time, with a view ultimately to get it into his own possession. On the occasion of a meeting of his creditors it had been agreed that he should pay 20s. in the pound — 4s. in the pound down, and the other 16s. by four instalments, at three months, at 4s. each. 16s. in the pound had thus been paid, and the creditors would have given him time to pay the fifth instalment.

Mr. Linklater said the statements of the bankrupt were not warranted by the facts of the case.

Mr. Chidley urged that the bankrupt had been hardly used; that the sale of his property had been conducted in an improvident manner; that he had given up property of the value of upwards of £10,000 at only cost price to meet Mr. Ives’ claim of £6,600 and £100 on the part of the other creditors. Some land, not yet built upon, was close to the Lewisham station, and into which the North Kent Line was about to run a branch. By means of foregoing a second mortgage for £230, he being also the first mortgagee, Mr. Ives had qualified himself as a petitioning creditor, and chosen his own assignee.

The Commissioner:— The nominee of Ives now wishes to be relieved. Do you object to his removal?

Mr. Chidley:— Yes. If removed, Mr. Ives might place himself in a more advantageous position than at present.

Mr. Linklater said his client was willing to leave the choice of a now assignee to the other creditors. As solicitor for Mr. Ives, he had no desire to become solicitor for the assignee. It would be his duty probably to take proceedings against the official assignee and the bankrupt. The bankrupt had granted leases at shamefully low rents, and thereby deprived Mr. Ives of a rental of £80 a-year. There was no pretence for saying that Mr. Ives had acted unfairly. Under an award judgment had been signed in his favour, and he did not expect to realize more than £5,000 for his securities against advances of up wards of £6,000.

The bankrupt repeated that in telling a policeman that he should shoot Mr. Bunn and then himself, he had acted under the influences of a very strong sense of wrong. He had seen Mr. Bunn only last night, when Mr. Bunn said that, having heard both sides, he was resolved that justice should be done, and that if Mr. Ives did not consent to a course which he should name, he would tender his resignation as assignee.

The Commissioner:— I don’t see how I can remove Mr. Bunn.

Mr. Linklater:— Surely, a man once appointed assignee is not to be left to be shot at.

Mr. Chidley:— The bankrupt felt himself aggrieved that public-house property should be disposed of in such an unusual way.

The Commissioner:— You allege that the assignee concurred in a very Wasteful realization?

Mr. Chidley:— Yes. The furniture should have been taken at a valuation. In one way or another there was a sacrifice to the extent of many hundred pounds.

It appeared from further statements that some years ago Mr. Ives took a lease of the land referred to (about seven acres) from the Earl of St. Germans at a rental of £200 a-year, and that he sublet it to the bankrupt for £300 a-year, subject to other conditions. The lease to the bankrupt was alleged by Mr. Linklater to have been cancelled by a deed produced. On the other hand, the bankrupt alleged that it was only intended to put him for a time in a more favourable position with his creditors. The bankrupt, Mr. Linklater said, had made such a statement to the official assignee as to cause him to say that they appeared to have been all a pack of knaves together.

The bankrupt proceeded to say that, having made the agreement with Mr. Ives, and expended £1,500 of his own money, and finding more capital necessary Mr. Ives had told him that he could get £20,000 from the London and Liverpool Assurance Company. Having sold all his own property to enable him to carry on some time longer, he was told that he must wait some time for the advance of £20,000. On entering on the building undertaking, Mr. Ives had told him he could name an idea of some importance, by means of which both of them could make their fortunes. He replied, he should be glad to hear of it, for that he had been living some fifty years without being able to find out such a plan. Mr. Ives then asked him whether ho had ever heard that his (Mr. Ives') son had been a bankrupt, and proceeded to state Out ho (Mr. Ives) and his uncle proved against his estate for £7,000. There were other creditors to the amount of £2,000. By acting on the advice of a solicitor, a fictitious opposition was got up to the son, and all went right. He advised him to take the same course, and he should have £1,000 wherewith to commence again. His reply was that he had always paid 20s. in the pound, and intended to continue to do so. Mr. Ives appeared to approve this. He had afterwards said, "Call a meeting of your creditors, place everything in my hands, and say nothing about a parcel of land, I will then lend you £1,100 to pay the creditors."

Mr. Linklater submitted that such statements were entitled to no notice. It was clear from his own statement that the bankrupt had committed a gross fraud.

The Commissioner:— Yes; but he charges your client with committing a greater. I have listened to his stories, because he appears to have been hardly used. It is clear that Ives has got everything in his own power, and that he is in a position of advantage. By taking an unusual course, he carried the choice of his own assignee. He now asks that his nominee may give up. I do not think I shall listen to any thing of the kind. What do you say Mr. Chidley?

Mr. Chidley:— I simply ask that the bankrupt may pass his examination.

The Commissioner:— Yes; he may pass. As for the removal of the assignee, I must decline to make any order.

Mr. Linklater urged the violent feeling evinced by the bankrupt.

The Commissioner:— A violent feeling is very often created by a sense of wrong. (To the bankrupt.) — Have you any intention in future to molest Mr. Bunn?

The Bankrupt:— Oh, dear, no.

His Honour then passed the bankrupt’s examination and declined to make any order tor Mr. Bunn's removal.