Hello,
I have a query concerning a bankruptcy that raises a few questions. As the matter spans over a decade, I have to include a few links. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
(1) towards end of left column : general meeting concerning bankruptcy HE Bird and E. Lewis had accountancy firm
(http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/23698/pages/240)
(2) found further information in newspapers. From this : bankrupts failed to file all accounts. This already indicates delay.
(3) After years of silence the matter resurfaced in November 1882. See http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/25164/pages/496, right column above
(4) In later meetings : some creditors owed something from both Bird and Lewis, some from Lewis alone.
(5) Finally discharge followed in 1883
I have, as said, a few questions :
a - Is it normal that it took so long before the bankruptcy was settled?
b - What could have been the impact on both men? My interest goes to HE Bird. He remained active as an accountant, and even had another accountancy company
with someone else (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24949/pages/1161). Can this be explained?
He was in the US for two years for other matters. I guess this means that the bankruptcy had but little impact on him.
is possible so long?
c - the article in the London Gazette of Nov. 1882 has the following quote : "The reason for this meeting was Lewis’ application for an order of discharge,
upon the ground that his failure to pay a dividend of 10s. in the pound has arisen from circumstances for which the said bankrupt cannot justly be held responsible."
This seems strange to me in relation to an accountancy firm. Does this mean that people invested in this firm?
I know that at least Bird was active in railway transactions in the US that failed. Could this be what was meant here?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Hans
I have a query concerning a bankruptcy that raises a few questions. As the matter spans over a decade, I have to include a few links. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
(1) towards end of left column : general meeting concerning bankruptcy HE Bird and E. Lewis had accountancy firm
(http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/23698/pages/240)
(2) found further information in newspapers. From this : bankrupts failed to file all accounts. This already indicates delay.
(3) After years of silence the matter resurfaced in November 1882. See http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/25164/pages/496, right column above
(4) In later meetings : some creditors owed something from both Bird and Lewis, some from Lewis alone.
(5) Finally discharge followed in 1883
I have, as said, a few questions :
a - Is it normal that it took so long before the bankruptcy was settled?
b - What could have been the impact on both men? My interest goes to HE Bird. He remained active as an accountant, and even had another accountancy company
with someone else (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24949/pages/1161). Can this be explained?
He was in the US for two years for other matters. I guess this means that the bankruptcy had but little impact on him.
is possible so long?
c - the article in the London Gazette of Nov. 1882 has the following quote : "The reason for this meeting was Lewis’ application for an order of discharge,
upon the ground that his failure to pay a dividend of 10s. in the pound has arisen from circumstances for which the said bankrupt cannot justly be held responsible."
This seems strange to me in relation to an accountancy firm. Does this mean that people invested in this firm?
I know that at least Bird was active in railway transactions in the US that failed. Could this be what was meant here?
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Hans
Comment