request : explanation about indenture

[HansR]

Hi,

Could someone please help me an explain the content of the following :

1. http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/19102/pages/2117
2. last item of the left column (Henry Bird)

I lack the background to understand the actual meaning of this piece of information. Nor did a search on the internet with terms like 'trustee', 'indenture', ... make me any wiser.

Your help would be hugely appreciated.

Kind regards,
Hans

[Olde Crone Holden]

Hello Hans and welcome to FTF.

Basically it just means he has handed over everything he possesses to the two named men, who are his main creditors and that the two men will be paying off his debts out of that. I think it also means he has escaped the (then) crime of bankruptcy.

An indenture is literally just a piece of paper which is torn in half, each party to the agreement keeping half until the matter is satisfactorily finished.

OC

[HansR]

Hello,

Many thanks for your reply.
Does this mean that he was completely without any property, or is this not sure as the transfer only involved his business affairs?
I found his bankruptcy announcement in the same source in 1829 (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/18617/pages/1835 and http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/18631/pages/2174). Is it possible that the indenture of 1833 still has to do with the bankruptcy of 4 years earlier or is it more likely that he started his business all over again and went bankrupt for a second time?

Hans

[Olde Crone Holden]

Unless his business was a limited company, then he would have to give all his property - or certainly enough to cover his debts. The fact that this was done by indenture means there was some agreement, maybe a compromise? struck. An indenture is a legally binding document, even if it is only written on the back of an envelope.

I would think this refers to the earlier bankruptcy. If he was unable to pay his debts then he would probably have been in prison, so not able to start up a new business - undischarged bankrupts were anyway barred for life from starting a new business or acquiring any new assets.

OC

[HansR]

Is it possible, in this scenario, that he kept his business going on between 1829 and 1833?

[Olde Crone Holden]

I very much doubt it, although it is JUST possible that he put someone else in charge. It would have been completely illegal for him to retain any interest in the business.

OC

[HansR]

thank you!