Bosbury Bankruptcies in Newspaper Reports

July 8th 1834

Philip Howe Daniel of the Razees, Bosbury, Hereford, cider merchant and cattle-dealer.

From the Edinburgh Gazette vol.4292   Tuesday, 8 July 1834 p.1 col.3

February 19th 1835

THE Commissioners, or the major part of them, named in and authorised by a Fiat in Bankruptcy, bearing date the 26th day of June, 1834, awarded and issued against PHILIP HOWE DANIEL, of the Razees, in the Parish of Bosbury, in the County of Hereford, cider merchant, cattle dealer, dealer and chapman, a Bankrupt, intend to meet (in pursuance of an order of his Majesty’s Court of Review) on the 4th day March next, at eleven of the clock in the forenoon, at the Offices of Mr. George Hill, No. 16, Foregate-street, in the City of Worcester, when and where the said Bankrupt is required to surrender himself between the hours of eleven and one of the same day, and make full discovery and dislosure of his Estate and Effects, and finish his examination.

From the Worcester Journal   Thursday, 19 February 1835 p.3 col.4

April 18th 1835

From the London Gazettes
P. H. Daniel, Razees, Bosbury, Herefordshire, cider merchant and cattle dealer.

From the Oxford University and City Herald   Saturday, 18 April 1835 p.4 col.1

Postscript: The reason behind this is explained in this extract from a chancery case in 1845. “On 26th June, 1834, a fiat in bankruptcy was issued against Philip Howe Daniel, under which he was adjudged a bankrupt, but that the fiat was afterwards annulled by consent of the creditors, in consideration of an agreement by the bankrupt to assign all his estate and effects to trustees for the benefit of his creditors; that, in pursuance of that agreement, and in consideration of the fiat having been annulled, Philip Howe Daniel, by indentures, dated 27th and 28th October, 1834, assigned the whole of his estate and effects to J. Long and R. Higgins, upon the trusts therein mentioned, for the benefit of P. H. Daniel’s creditors; that, in 1836, a suit was instituted to carry into effect the trusts of this indenture ...”

August 14th 1886


    At the Guildhall, Worcester, on Friday afternoon, the examination in bankruptcy of William Holmes, farmer, of Goldhill, Bosbury, Herefordshire, was resumed before Mr. Registrar Allen.
    The debtor was examined by the Official Receiver, Mr. Lilley (of the firm of Piper and Lilley appeared for the debtor. Mr. J. Corner, of Hereford, appeared for the petitioning creditor (Mr. Taylor, of Showle Court).
    The DEBTOR, in the course of his examination, explained some transactions in the American cattle trade, upon which he had lost heavily. He began the trade in 1883. He sent pedigree Herefords to be sold at Chicago, and had the risk of transit, and of sale. The first and second lots were sold by private contract, and the third lot—which was the last—was sold by auction. The first lot he had reared himself, and the number shipped was either 23 or 24. He estimated that he lost from £8 to £10 per head. The second lot was chiefly composed of animals which he had bought, though he had drafted into it a few animals from his own herds. He did not think that on the second lot he lost anything. But on the third lot he lost heavily. He estimated his total loss on this last transaction from £1,800 to £2000. He shipped 80 pedigree Herefords, for which he paid in England from £4,800 to £5,000. He went into debt at the Bank to purchase these cattle. Mr Barratt went out with the cattle, and Mr C. Oakey—both neighbours of his—followed, and superintended the sale.
    The debtor was cross-examined regarding some large withdrawals from his balance at the bank. He had made a considerable sum from his hops in several past years.
   The examination was adjourned sine die.

    The examination of Robert Holmes, of Old Court, Bosbury, near Ledbury, was then proceeded with. Mr. Masefield appeared for Mr. John Mutlow, and Mr. Lilley for the debtor.
    JOHN MUTLOW, of Tarrington, Herefordshire, was examined. He said that March, 1877, he became a party to the lease of Mr. Holmes’ farm at Old Court. He was in no way connected with his business a farmer. He became a guarantor at the Bank for an overdraft of Mr. Holmes’ account, which in 1880 amounted £4,438 4s. The Bank officials required the draft to be repaid, and he (witness) conseuted [sic] that the over-draft should written off debtor’s account and placed to his (witness’s) debit. In consideration of witness’s paying off the overdraft, debtor agreed to assign his entire estate, valued more than £3,000—except his household furniture—to witness. Mr. Holmes assented to this arrangement. Since then the debtor had still lived on the farm, but he had no power to buy or sell. Witness paid the wages, but debtor’s name still remained on tbe ratebooks and tbe carts and implements. Debtor had nothing whatever to do with the Court Farm now. In 1885 witness had sworn that he was a co-partner with Robert Holmes. The profits of the farm were nil, and witness bore all the losses.
    The DEBTOR was examined and said that the agreement to hand over his estate to Mr. Mutlow, had never been read to him. He was told at the bank tbat it was document which would secure Mr. Muntlow [sic], and do no harm to any one else. He signed it on that assurance. He did not understand that he was signing over to Mr. Mutlow everything he possessed except his furniture. Since then, about 12 months, no change had been made in his position on the farm. At the time he signed the transfer, he was in debt largely to other people. This examination was also adjourned sine die.

From the Hereford Journal   Wednesday 24 December 1845 p.3 col.3

July 28th 1900

   John Jenkins, 8, Crompton street, Warwick, lately residing at Staplow, near Ledbury, and carrying on business as an innkeeper and fruit dealer, attended before the Registrar (Mr. A. S. Allen), at the Guildhall, [Worcester] on Tuesday, for his public examination. The statement of affairs showed liabilities amounting to £127 5s., of which £97 5s. is expected to rank for dividend. The causes of failure,as alleged by the bankrupt, were; “Illness, bad debts incurred fruit dealing and in connection with the inn at Staplow, want of knowledge of the public-house business, trade confined to the summer months, and business too small to cover expenses.”
    The Official Receiver’s observations were as follow: The bankrupt commenced business as a blacksmith at Warwick, in 1890, with capital of £6 10s. He remained at Warwick till 1896, when, with cash capital of £300, he removed to Staplow, Herefordshire, where he traded as an innkeeper, blacksmith, and fruit dealer till Christmas last, when he returned to his old business Warwick, which he then acquired by purchase for about £30. The present unsecured liabilities were contracted at Staplow, and include £48 18s. for fruit (which the bankrupt states was forwarded by him to a commission agent for sale, and for the greater part of which he never received any return); £19 10s. for beer, £8 for medical attendance, and £20 for domestic and other debts of a miscellaneous character. The bankrupt states that he was too illiterate to keep proper accounts. He alleges that, upon the forced sale of his effects at Staplow, at Christmas last, he sustained a loss of about £150. This loss more than covers his deficiency. The creditor returned as fully secured is the bankrupt’s mother, to whom, on the 18th Jan., 1900, he gave a bill of sale in consideration of an advance of £30. The tenancy of the premises at Warwick is in the name of the mother, and the bankrupt alleges that he manages the business for her under an arrangement by which he receives one-fourth of the profits.
   The Official Receiver, addressing debtor, said he had little confidence in the accounts filed. His opinion was that the accounts had been made to balance by figures which had been manufactured, and he believed that debtor could have paid all the creditors if he had been honestly disposed towards them, and, further, that he had money now which ought to be in the hands of his creditors.
   After various questions, the Official Receiver asked why debtor did not pay the money he received from the sale at Staplow to his creditors.
   Debtor: I thought I had enough to pay the creditors as well as buy the business at Warwick.
   Debtor further stated that he did not sell his effects at Staplow for the purpose of raising the money to buy the business at Warwick.
    Questioned as to six pipes and six hogsheads of cider which he had let his brother-in-law have, and valued at £21, debtor said this value was not correct; they were worth £1 a hogshead or pipe.
   Mr. Sharp: How much did you lose last year in betting?
   Debtor: I don’t think I lost any.
   Debtor said the largest sum he had lost at one time in betting was £20.
   From questions put to bankrupt regarding some fruit-growing speculations it appeared that all the firms he had sold fruit to had paid him except one, Messrs. Hall, whose cheques had been dishonoured. The matter was now in the hands of Mr. Beauchamp, the solicitor.
   Debtor said that he had paid £30 to a Mr. Probert, from whom he took the business at Warwick, £15 for stock-in-trade and £15 for goodwill. The business was bought in debtor’s name, but when he borrowed the £30 from his mother the business was transferred to her, though debtor’s name still remained over the shop.
   Mr. Sharp referred to entries in the accounts, £20 for lodging during January and February, and £25 2s. 8d. for sundry accounts paid, of which no record had been kept; also an item £10 travelling expenses.
   Regarding these items debtor gave very unsatisfactory replies, and could not mention the name of a single person to whom he had paid any of the £25 2s. 8d. charged as “sundry accounts.”
   Mr. Sharp remarked that the £25 had evidently not been paid, and asked His Honour order debtor to give a specific account of it, as he believed the accounts had been made up to deceive the creditors. It was apparent that debtor need not have filed his petition had he acted honestly with his creditors. These accounts suggested fraud.
   Upon being asked by Mr. Sharp, on his oath, whether he had disclosed every asset, debtor replied: “Upon my oath I have. I wish I may die this minute if I have £5 note belonging to me.” The examination was closed.

From the Worcestershire Chronicle   Saturday 28 July 1900 p.7 col.3

Typeface: Baskerville, 1754
Transcriptions by Barry Sharples, 2016-18.
 go to previous page go to previous menu go to front page