-
1-3
h..
#54 M.,
PANGALA 14.
J.
11. (á)
}
1
STA
S
11 werk & hardship on them, and appear insquitable in view
the law in Singapuro under which the local oreditors there
re paid in full.
The sum of £1,260 mentiered includes the amounıt
This £1,000 due to the Estate of the late Capt. Bunje.
tute will ucas £440 if the carete ert merged.
Those
519
We are enolssing horsia statements showing the
roiculers of the three clsesos of ariditors with details
amourts receivable ir dividend by ocuh creditor.
atomente will alse aber the extent of the benefit or logs
sach creditor under the propoerd pool.
Another point which we think should receive
sideration before a decision is made se to whether or not
vol the maachs is the question of partnership. According
gror.
·
to a Fartnership deed executed ir Farch, 1914, the partners
the Hongkong firm are Carl Otto Goerg Hoërmann and Otto
Mr. 0. F. Heermann is not mentioned in a partner.
In a Power of Attorney dated the 20th. January,
Fanted to Mr. C. Bunje, Mr. G. F. Hoerman described himself
f carrying on business at Eingepere under the style of Ches.
J. Gaupp & Co. As the partnership dood between Ur. 0.0.6.
leermann and He. Otte Wagrer was not sigrad until two months
fior, we cannot understand why Mr. C. F. Haermany. was not a
arty to the deed, if in fact he was a partræer of the Hongkong
business.
If the Power of Attorney granted to Hr. Bunje is
to be taken at its face value, and asving in mind the doubts
la to Mr. C. F. Heermann being a partner in the Hongkong
business at all, we think it is a fair conclusion that the
engkong and Singapore businesses are separate businesseK.
We must, however, state that we have always regarded Mr.
C. F. Hoermann nea Hongkong Partner, and have addressed
lin us such. In the abertive negotiations for the sale of
The business in Hongkong, he was referred to as s partner,
and his name appears in the draft dood as such. Our Mr.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.