|
Correspondence from Louis Wilkinson to Karl Germer
17 St. Leonard's Terrace, London, S.W.3. Sloane 5811
28th February, 1948.
Dear Mr. Germer,
Shortly after posting to you my letter of 19th February I was able to get into touch with Lady Harris [Frieda Harris] and she told me that she had heard nothing from her lawyers. I therefore telephoned to them and they said they would write to you. Some further delay followed but now they have sent me a carbon copy of their letter to you, asking whether I think it will "meet the case." I am returning it to them today without suggesting any alterations, as that would only increase their charges: but I want to give you the substance of their letter, since you should get this from me rather before you get theirs, as mine will have two days start.
They (i.e. Messrs Braby & Waller, letter signed by one of the partners, Mr. K. Miller Jones) write: "It appears to us that the Official Receiver is right in his view that the monies advanced by you to Mr. Crowley were advanced because of mutual interests and were not held by Mr. Crowley in trust, and that this being so you have no provable remedy in the bankruptcy or any right against the assets which become vested in the Official Receiver as assets in the bankruptcy."
The paragraph that follows is concerned with your offer of 300 for the old creditors, and points out that the recent creditors would be entitled to claim the assets if the Official Receiver did relinquish his claim upon them—i.e., upon the £460 at the Bank. I think, what the lawyers have in mind is that, supposing the Receiver relinquished his claim and you paid him £300 for the old creditors, you would lose money on that arrangement for you would be out of pocket a clear £300 and yet would get very little indeed from the £460 relinquished by the Receiver, owing to the claims upon the latter sum by the recent creditors. What the lawyers do not realize is that you might wish to pay the recent creditors in any case. My own feeling about this is that, if the Official Receiver, takes over, the principal recent creditors should then take the necessary steps to be ranked on an equality with the old creditors. I understand that one creditor can do this on behalf of all, so, if the Hastings printers as the principal creditor, took the necessary steps, that would be sufficient. The question would then have to be considered, after so much in the £ had been paid to them, how far it would just and equitable, in each case, to make up to them the total of their respective claims. Personally, I should feel somewhat differently in the different cases of the various creditors. If the Official Receiver took over, he would, as he has told me, be bound to pay the funeral expenses in full and it may be—though this seemed a doubtful point—that he would have to pay the doctors' bills and Mr. Vernon Symonds' hotel bill in full. However, I feel sure that he would scale down the latter considerably.
There is, of course, the further point that, if the Receiver takes over, you would make an offer for the books and papers (other than those stored till recently at Whiteley's) which are now in Mr. John Symonds' house. By the time that matters are cleared up between yourself and the Receiver, you should certainly have the list of those books and papers in your possession and would then have an idea of what the offer should be. I am inclined to think that the Receiver would accept a quite moderate offer, such as £25; for books in any bulk are not at all easy to dispose of nowadays, as he knows. But I have again urged Mr. John Symonds to make out the list as soon as possible, and, when it is made out, estimate of an advisable offer can be more exact.
Lady Harris' lawyers, at the end of the letter which you will shortly receive, refers to this matter of a possible offer from you to the Receiver for the books and manuscripts, and adds: "We understand that Mr. Wilkinson will communicate with the Official Receiver and ascertain what sum he would be prepared to accept for these." This is written under a misapprehension—perhaps arising from something that Lady Harris may have said to them—for the Receiver's suggestion was that the offer should come from you. I telephoned to the Receiver this morning and he informed me that he was prepared to wait until you decided what course to take. He gave me the impression that there was no sort of urgency; but of course there, is from our point of view.
I am asking the lawyers to enclose in their letter to you the letter to me from the Official Receiver that I sent to them.—But now I see that they state that they are sending you a copy of this letter, so I shall not need to raise the point.
From the £100 which you refer to in your letter of February 13th I will pay the charges of these lawyers in addition to the other two items of disbursements by Lady Harris and myself. But I shouldn't think that their charges ought to be at all considerable as there seems no occasion for further correspondence with them, in view of their evident opinion that the Receiver is in the right, following on their study of your letters and his on the matter. I should, however add, that the Receiver, on the telephone this morning, said that if you had any further points to raise, he would be glad to consider them. However, if you have, they could just as well be presented without the medium of a lawyer. The point of employing a lawyer was to get an English legal opinion on the disputed point, and I am glad that we have done that, though I am most disappointed by the result. Messrs Braby & Waller have the reputation of being highly reliable lawyers.
I have found my Introductory Essay to the abridged Commentary on the Book of the Law and will send it to you under separate cover by ordinary mail. A part of the abridgement has also been found among the papers at Mr. John Symonds' and no doubt the rest will be found shortly. There is, as I said in my last letter, another copy with my papers at Chiswick.
With kind regards and best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Louis Wilkinson
|