Leicester Chronicle and Leicestershire Mercury, Saturday 20 April 1867, page 8
Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, Wednesday - Before Mr Registrar Hill - In re W. Seal, Nuneaton, brickmaker - first meeting. Mr Griffin attended for the creditors, and Mr Morgan for the Leicestershire Bank and other creditors. Mr Griffin objected because of certain securities given by the bankrupt, in regard to a promissory note for over L500. These securities had not been produced, and therefore he held that in the absence of these securities the affidavit did not come within the strict rule of the Court. it might be when the securities were produced that the bankrupt would have no right to prove at all. Mr Wm. Morgan urged that the securities were given by the father to Mr Payne, from whom the money was borrowed. Mr Payne was examined, and stated that the securities - mortgages - were given by the bankrupt's father. The money was paid to Mr Seal, jun. The bankrupt was called, and he stated that the loan was on the part of his father, and he received certain amounts from him which he placed to his own account in the bank, and of which he had made entries in his book. - Mr Griffin contended that all documents must be produced before the Commissioner, to see whether they should be left to the general benefit of the creditors, or to whom else they should go. It was an old rule, without one single exception. - His Honour said the question was one of fact, whether the creditors lent the money to the bankrupt or to the father. - Mr Morgan said he did not know for what possible purpose they required the deeds, because they had nothing whatever to do with that question. It was a mere matter of arrangement qua surety to satisfy the creditor, and had no relation whatever to the bankrupt's estate. - The bankrupt's father was examined, and he stated that the money was paid to his son by Mr Payne, and he was only security for the amount. The transaction was entirely between the bankrupt and Mr Payne. After the bankrupt had obtained the money, he asked him (witness) to retain possession of a portion of it, which he handed to the bankrupt as he wanted. Out of the whole amount he only kept L40 on account of rent, which the bankrupt owed him. in cross-examination, he said he never was in partnership with his son, and he had never made any arrangement with him that he should not have any interest on the money lent to him. He never made any arrangement at Lady-day, 1866, that he should have a share of the profits of the trade in which his son was engaged. - His Honour ruled that he did not think the securities ought to be exhibited. Afterwards, Mr Thomas Payne, ...[here the scan has cut off the bottom of the article
]
