Rushden Echo & Argus, 22nd January 1932, transcribed by Kay Collins

Bankruptcy—€”A receiving order has been made in the matter of G Kaufman, trading as the '€œHouse of Fashion,'€ 18, Church-street, Rushden, and 11, Premier-parade, Edgware, Middlesex, ladies'€™ outfitter.—'€œLondon Gazette.'€

Examination of Rushden Bankrupt - Trade Depression Given as Cause of Failure

The public examination took place at Northampton Bankruptcy Court, on Friday last of George Hyam Kaufman, trading as “The House of Fashion,” Church-street, Rushden, and 11 Premier Parade, Edgware, Ladies’ outfitter.

The gross liabilities were stated as £3,431, expected to rank at £3,379. The net assets, after deducting £52 for preferential claims, totalled £813, leaving a deficiency of £2,565.

The debtor gave as his cause of failure trade depression. [part of a longer article]

Public Examination of Rushden Debtor - Continued at Northampton Court
Mr G H Kaufman's Affairs
The public examination of George Hyman Kaufman, ladies'€™ outfitter, of Rushden and Edgware, was continued at Northampton Bankruptcy Court on Friday last, when Mr Wolfe, counsel for the trustee, drew attention to an answer made by the debtor at a previous court suggesting that he valued his stock at a high figure in order to help and with the knowledge of the bank manager.

Mr Wolfe pointed out that the manager concerned was present in Court, and if it were possible he could call him to the witness box, but the Registrar thought the better way was for the questions to be put again in the presence of the manager.

This was done, and Kaufman corrected his previous statement to one that the manager suggested that he should take stock. He (debtor) wished to prevent the bank official from getting into trouble with his headquarters.

The registrar: Do you suggest that the bank manager did anything throughout other that what any professional bank manager would do?

Mr Kaufman: No.

The Registrar (to the bank manager) : Well that ought to satisfy you, Mr Muxlow.

A number of other questions were also put on the points raised by the balance sheets presented to the bank. The debtor admitted that the stock figures were larger than he had ever had, and suggested that his assistants, who took stock, had put it in at sale values.

He was again asked why, in the balance sheets, he omitted to include in the creditors the name of his wife and other relatives, and, as at a previous Court, said that he did not think it necessary at the time, but he felt that under present conditions his wife’s claim should be allowed.

Debtor claimed that his wife was the biggest sufferer by what had happened. Asked as to the creditors'€™ meeting which he called, the debtor said there was only one creditor there, and there were no proxies. His brother had seen several of the creditors, who appeared quite willing to accept the offer of payment in full by instalments.

Further questions were put to him as to his transactions with his brother and he insisted that the goods sent were as security for debts his brother had paid.

Towards the end of the examination the debtor complained that he was being treated like a criminal, and the registrar told him to be quiet, or he would have to appear before the Judge for commitment.

The case was adjourned to the June Court.