At the London Bankruptcy Court, yesterday, the first meeting of the creditors of this absconding bankrupt was held before Mr. Stewart, assistant receiver. There was a large attendance of creditors and their legal advisers. No statement of affairs was laid before the meeting: but from a statement left by the bankrupt before he absconded it appears that the assets exceed the liabilities by £2,690, the unsecured liabilities amounting to £15,775, against assets of £18,465, of which £16,000 is put down as being the value of his freehold house, "The Elms," Muswell Hill.
Among the creditors fully secured is Alfred Johnson [Nehemiah's Father in Law], of Burton Hall, Boston, £3,000; the Halifax and Huddersfield Bank, £1,950; and Mr. S. Learoyd, Huddersfield, £9,000.
Creditors partly secured, the Yorkshire Banking Company, £1,750, security £1,000; and the London and County Bank, £680, security, £80.
Among the principal unsecured creditors was Mr. Henry Roberts, the petitioning creditor, £2,500; Mr. J.M. Ellis, trustee of G. F-Bailey, deceased, £2,400; Mr. S. Learoyd, £1,050; Mrs. Fraser, Holmfirth, £2.500; and others.
Upon the proof of Mr. S. Learoyd, the Chairman said that the proof was for £1,050, balance of £9,000, security being held for the difference.
In reply to a question as to how the claim arose, Mr. S. Learoyd stated that in the year 1880 his brother (the bankrupt) told him that there were certain claims against him which it was not convenient for him to meet at the time, and he was induced to lend him the necessary money, receiving as security a charge upon certain freehold property and upon life policies. He held these policies and securities up to 1884, when he gave the title doeds [sic] up to his brother and allowed him to realise them. He had possession of another policy on the life of one David Brooks, which he handed over to the bankrupt for the purpose of getting the money upon it, his brother agreeing to pay him the cash when he received it. It was very painful for him to make any such statement, but the fact was that his brother drew the money and never handed it over to him, so that he lost the benefit of that security altogether. In June, 1884, his brother sent for him and told him that he had to meet certain claims, and that if they were paid he would be relieved from all anxiety and from all his difficulties. He advanced several sums of money, and took as security his life policies and a second charge upon the Elms estate, which had been already mortgaged for £8,000. His position was precisely the same as it was previously, except that he had to pay the premiums on his life policies when they came due. He had had no transaction with his brother since that time, June, 1884. The proof was admitted for voting.
A proof was tendered by Mr. Oldfield, on behalf of Mr. J.M. Ellis, trustee and executor of the estate of G.F. Bailey, deceased, for £2,204 due in respect of moneys and securities belonging to the estate, and wrongfully used by Nehemiah Learoyd, co-trustee and executor, to his own benefit.
Mr. Holmes objected to the proof on the ground that Mr. Ellis was not entitled to prove until he had refunded the trust fund; and, secondly that his co-trustee must join in the proof.
The Chairman said he thought that, until Mr. Ellis had discharged his trust, he was not entitled to prove.
Mr. Oldfield submitted that his client was entitled to prove for the loss which the trust estate had made by the misappropriation of his co-trustee, inasmuch as he was liable to provide them himself.
Mr. Nichol said that if the chairman's ruling was correct in one particular, the absconding bankrupt must be arrested before any proof could be put in, which would be a monstrous thing.
Mr. Oldfield said it surely could not be contended that Mr. Ellis must pay this sum of £2,400 into a bank before being entitle to prove against the bankrupt's estate for it.
The Chairman said that it might be owing to the tactics of Mr. Ellis that the bankrupt had been allowed to misappropriate this money.
Mr. Oldfield said he did not wish to make statements, but he had been given to understand that the bankrupt had obtained a lot of this money by means of forgery. He was compelled to make these statements, but if that was the truth no liability could be attached to his client.
Mr. S. Learoyd said that he had been told that there were securities in existence representing this fund.
Mr. Oldfield stated that he had occupied one hour and a half searching documents at the bankrupt's office, and the only security he had found had been given credit for in the proof, and was for £250. The proof was admitted for voting.
Mr. F. C. Willis appeared to support the proof of Mr. Willsmerst [sic], for £5,000; but the creditor could not attend and the proof was ordered to stand over.
Mr. Eldon said he represented Mrs. Fraser, of Holmfirth, who was a creditor for £2,500, but had not received notice of the proceedings.
Several other gentlemen present said that they represented creditors who had not had time to prove at that meeting.
The chairman said that it would not prejudice their right to prove hereafter.
Mr. Hohns[sic] than proposed that Mr. John Brown, of 16 Holborn Viaduct, London, should be appointed trustee, and that Mr. Samual [sic] Learoyd, Mr. Henry Roberts, and Mr. T.M. Ellis, should be appointed the committee of inspection.
Some demur was made to Mr. Learoyd being appointed on the committee.
Mr. Holns[sic] stated that so far as Mr. S. Learoyd was concerned he was the most useful committeeman the creditors could appoint, as he had the knowledge and was in a position to afford every information to the trustee touching the bankrupts' [sic] affairs.
The chairman said that it was only fair to state that since the receiving order had been made Mr. Samuel Learoyd had given every possible assistance to the official receiver in elucdating[sic] the bankrupt's position, and that his assistance had resulted in sums of money being received which might otherwise not have been collected. The trustee and committee of inspection were then appointed, and the proceedings terminated. It is believed that so far from there being any surplus assets there will be a large deficiency when the whole of the indebtedness is ascertained.
Source: findmypast - The Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser, 23 December 1885, Page 4, Column 4