A Father’s Will: Sequel at Exeter to a Newton Bankruptcy: Son’s Application: At Exeter County Court yesterday, Mr. A. Harold Ward (Official Receiver in Bankruptcy) mentioned the application made at the December Court by William Henry Pinsent, of Newton Abbot, for his discharge in bankruptcy. The application, he said, was at that date adjourned in order that another application might be made in the Chancery Division on the instruction of the will of the applicant’s father. The latter had knowledge of his son’s bankruptcy and that he was an undischarged bankrupt when the will was made. The father devised under his will to the Trustee two-tenths of the residuary estate upon trust for the bankrupt for life or until “he should become a bankrupt.” The question arose as to whether there was forfeiture seeing that the son was already bankrupt at the time the will was made. Mr. Justice Lawrence had decided that question in the affirmative. Therefore, it seemed to be clear that as an officer’s trustee of the bankruptcy, he (the Official Receiver), had no claim on the two-tenths of the residuary estate. Consequently, the application of the debtor had now to be dealt with.
Applicant, added the Official Receiver, had been engaged by his late father as an assistant in the brewery. The father had rescued the son from financial disaster on three or four occasions.
SEVERAL REASONS AGAINST DISCHARGE: The Judge said there were several reasons against discharge, one being that debtor had not paid 10s. in the £. Mr. T. J. W. Templeman (for the debtor) said his client had been anxious to pay his debts in full. He attempted to get the bankruptcy annulled, the sole difficulty being that under the will there was a discretion for the executors to pay the wife and children. If the children had been 21 years of age there would have been an annulment, and there would have been sufficient to pay 20s. in the £ and interest. The difficulty was to get sufficient security for the raising of the necessary money. There was also the fact that one of the trustees was against and would not assist.
There was a legacy of £100 which in the ordinary way would have been claimed by the Official Receiver. The executors, however, claimed a lien on the £100 because the testator had paid an overdraft at the bank.
It was suggested on behalf of the debtor (he added) that the £100 should be used to enable him to obtain his discharge, and they should not press their claim for the overdraft. That would have enabled the payment to the creditors of 10s or 12s in the £. Since the Chancery Court had declared there was forfeiture that had fallen through, debtor being left in a worse position in regard to the bankruptcy than he was when the application was made, and when was endeavouring to pay his creditors in full.
The executors were not represented that day. Debtor was formerly in his father’s brewery earning £10 month, and had a wife and two children:
GRANTED, BUT WITH TIME LIMIT: His Honour pointed out that he was precluded under the section of the Act from granting the discharge. The Official Receiver said his Honour had discretion to grant a discharge in the event of debtor consenting to judgment for the payment of a substantial payment. His Honour said he could not make an order which he knew would be futile.
Mr. Templeman asked his Honour would grant debtor his discharge in the event of the wife being able to save £100. His Honour replied that it would be competent for an application to be made again.
Ultimately his Honour granted the discharge, but suspended it for two years, giving leave to Mr. Templeman to apply at any time for the order to be varied.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive
Referenced
GRO0897 Devonport: William Henry Pinsent: 1874 – 1949