Cambridge Independent Press 22 Mar 1907: Herbert Flint and Bert Rich named in bankruptcy case

A Convicted Bankrupt - Discharge Refused

The Official Receiver opposed the application of Arthur Balding, formerly residing at Old Shardelows, Fulbourn, and previously in business as a livery stable keeper at St. Tibbs-row, Cambridge, for his discharge from bankruptcy.

The Official Receiver’s report was to the effect that the receiving order was made on a creditor’s petition in September, 1903. The liabilities amounted to £1,015 17s. 7d. The assets were estimated to produce £54 13s. 1d, but realised £208 3s. 6d., the considerable difference between the actual value and the bankrupt’s estimate being mainly accounted for by his having omitted to include and hand over to the Official Receiver certain assets, which were ultimately recovered, and sold for £166 1s. The first and final dividend of 2s. 3½d. was paid on proofs for £703 11s. 8d. The bankrupt joined a Mr. Smith in a business as a livery stable keeper and horse dealer, in St. Tibbs-row, Cambridge, in August, 1901, and, a year later, the partnership was dissolved by mutual consent, the bankrupt taking over the business, and all its liabilities and assets, except about £300 worth of the latter, which Mr. Smith removed, and giving Mr. Smith a bill for £100. The bankrupt estimated that he took over about £1,000 worth of stock, and liabilities to the extent of £650, but afterwards discovered that the liabilities were much larger. The business was carried on until July, 1903, but without success, and it then being in difficulties, the bankrupt gave it up, and removed to Fulbourn, where he carried on business. The bankrupt was married in 1903, and upon the marriage, executed an ante-nuptial settlement, by which all furniture was assigned to trustees for the benefit of his wife. On August 25th, 1903, the bankrupt was served with a bankruptcy notice, with the terms of which he failed to comply, and a petition was presented, and duly served, the hearing being fixed for September 26th, 1903, and on that the receiving order was made. On the previous day, four horses were removed from the bankrupt’s custody, at Fulbourn, to the premises of Mr. Herbert Flint, a horse dealer, at Trumpington. On September 28th, when the bankrupt was asked at his preliminary examination whether, within the last twelve months, he had sold, removed, or disposed of any portion of his stock, furniture, or effects otherwise than in the ordinary course of his business, he promised to supply a list of the horses, traps, &c., disposed of privately. The list was furnished with respect to the traps, but not with respect to the horses. On September 29th, the Official Receiver’s agent went to the “White Hart”, Fulbourn, and was told Mr. Balding had there some harness and horse clothing, and also two horses. The latter were seen in the stable, and the Official Receiver’s agent gave notice that they were claimed by the Official Receiver, and must not be allowed to leave the premises. Early on the morning of the next day, however, these two horses were taken away by a boy in the bankrupt’s employ. One of them, “The Coon”, was sent to a Mr. R.W.W. Burton at Daventry, and the other, “Hobnob”, was taken to Mr. Flint’s at Trumpington. On October 3rd the Official receiver, having obtained an order for the redirection to him of the bankrupt’s letter, received a letter from Mr. Burton, who stated, “’The Coon’ arrived all right, but very lame. I really cannot do with him, as he would be useless to me on account of being so lame. Please tell me by return whether I am to send “The Coon” back at once or keep him a few days for you.” On receipt of that letter the Official Receiver claimed “The Coon”, and Mr. Burton sent it to him. On October 6th a letter was received from Mr. Bert Rich, of Trumpington, in which it was stated, “Alec Towler stopped me in the road the other day. ‘You look like getting into trouble’. I asked him what about. He said that some of the Cambridge people (your clients) were kicking up a fuss: said I had taken your horses to keep until the bother was over. I told him that I had taken the animals to square accounts back in September, but had not got room for them over here until the other day." The Official Receiver at once claimed the four horses, and though Mr. Rich said they had been handed to him in settlement of £40, part of a debt of £100 due to him, he nevertheless at once handed over to the Official Receiver three horses and the £26 for which the other one had been sold. Bankrupt was prosecuted for concealing and not delivering up these horses, and for omitting mention of them in his statement of affairs. The case was tried at the Cambridge Quarter Sessions on June 27th, 1904, and the bankrupt was acquitted with regard to the charges in respect of the four horses recovered from Mr. Rich, but found guilty with regard to the charges in respect of ‘The Coon’, and was sentenced by the Recorder to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The Official Receiver submitted that the bankrupt had, after trial, been found guilty of committing misdemeanours under the Debtor’s Act, 1889, and stated that the bankrupt’s conduct during the proceedings under his bankruptcy had been most unsatisfactory.

Mr. O. Papworth appeared on behalf of the bankrupt, who stated that the cause of his getting into financial difficulties was that the liabilities he took over were considerably greater than he was informed by Smith when the partnership was dissolved. Nearly all the accounts for which he was sued were incurred by Smith during the partnership without his knowledge.

Mr. Papworth urged that the bankrupt, whether he was right or wrong, had been punished for his actions in regard to the horse known as “The Coon”, and he should not be punished again for the same thing. He asked His Honor to grant discharge, and suspend it for the shortest period he reasonably could.

In answer to His Honor, bankrupt stated that he was now foreman for a farmer and dealer at Abingdon, near Oxford.

The Official Receiver quoted authorities to show that the discharge of a bankrupt, having been convicted of misdemeanours under the Bankruptcy Acts, must be refused unless there were special reasons for the Court to determine otherwise, and urged that there were not mitigating circumstances in this case at all.

His Honor remarked he had thought that the case was one of the suspension of the discharge for probably five or six years, but, when he came to look at the authorities, he found that his hands were tied, because upon the face of the order there must appear the reasons which induced the Judge to depart from the exigencies of the sub-section. Where were the mitigating circumstances in the history of the case that he could place upon the face of the order as justifying him, in the teeth of the case cited to him, in granting the discharge? He failed to see them, and he declined to grant the man his discharge, although he was happy to believe that his decision might not be final.