Correspondence from Louis Wilkinson to Menneer, Idle & Brackett

c/o Mrs. de Selincourt,

Grove Heath,

Ripley, Surrey.

18th January, 1950.

Dear Mr. Beckett,

E.A. Crowley, decd.

Since receiving your letter of 16th January I have looked up my communications with the Official Receiver and from them have confirmed my impression that I informed him that the estate of the above included Post-War Credit. The relevant passage of my letter to him, dated 31st Dec. '47, is as follows:

"I have in my possession a Certificate of Post-War Credit dated June '43, in favour of E.A. Crowley, together with two cheques from the solicitors for the Trust fund mentioned earlier in this letter, each for £1.9.6. and dated 27 Nov. and 20 Nov. last. I take it that I should pay the latter into the account at Hastings where the money found in Mr. Crowley's room is lodged and keep the Certificate until things are cleared up generally?" I referred also to these moneys in conversation with the Official Receiver's representative, though I cannot remember if the amount of the Certificate (£10.1.6.) was ever enquired about, or mentioned by me. I may possibly have mentioned it in a letter of which I have not a copy."

I have the letter, of 7th June, '48, in which "The Official Receiver has decided to make no claim to the moneys deposited with Lloyds Bank, Hastings." I assumed that, as this was nearly six months after the date of my letter above quoted, this included a waiving of the claim to the two small cheques, if not of that to the Post-War Credit Certificate. But I did not feel that it was necessary that the Official Receiver should specifically relinquish his claim to each asset. He had all the various categories of assets under consideration, and his claim to one only (i.e. books and MSS for which, acting for Mr. Germer [Karl Germer], I paid him £25) implied in my view the waiving of all the others, none of which had not been disclosed to him. He waived claim to all personal belongings only by word of mouth during our interview, though he did give consent in writing to Whiteley's, where certain goods of E.A. Crowley were stored, to the executors' taking possession of them because Whiteley's would not give up these goods to us without his formal notification. Of course he had not under consideration the specific sum that has now been obtained on account of Post-War Credits; nor, as I said above, do I think that he ever enquired as to the amount of the Post-War Credit of which I told him, though I cannot be sure that this amount of £10.1.6 was not mentioned. It may be a relevant consideration that even the final Post-War Credit sum of £50.14.1 now obtained is barely more than enough to set against the priority claim (i.e. priority over all other Crowley creditors, past or present) of the late E.A. Crowley's undertakers, whose bill, discharged in full by Mr. Germer, was £49.2.0.

However, if you feel that I should notify the Official Receiver of the total amount of Post-War Credit payment now received, I will of course do so. I feel that you will be better able to judge of this than I can.

The following passage from a letter to me from the Assistant Official Receiver, dated 24th July, 1948, may be possibly of relevance:

"I am to point out that, in view of the small sum realized by the Official Receiver consequent upon the death of the debtor and the release by the Official Receiver of the cash at Lloyds Bank, Ltd., the Official Receiver will not be responsible for any charges that may be incurred in connection with the debtor's books and literary writings or any other charges incurred consequent upon the debtor's death." The final paragraph of the same letter more or less recapitulates this: "The Official Receiver will be glad to receive your assurance that, so far as the trustees are concerned, no further charges will fall against the debtor's estate and that, so far as they are concerned, the Official Receiver may proceed with the distribution to the creditors of the small sum in his hands."

I understand this letter as meaning (inter alia) that the Official Receiver was protecting himself against having to pay toward the funeral expenses for, suppose Mr. Germer had said (in view of the fact that the Official Receiver's relinquishing his claim to the cash at Lloyds Bank was based on his having come round to the executor's view that that cash was never E.A. Crowley's property, but Mr. Germer's.) "I will take all the cash for my own personal use, as it is held to belong to me," then the undertakers (and any other 'priority' creditor) might have been able to claim the £25 paid to the Official Receiver, together with War Credit payments and those of two small cheques and personal belongings (in fact, everything not adjudged as Mr. Germer's property) in view of their priority. Of course, under the circumstances, the executors were quite ready to give the Official Receiver the assurances that he desired. Of course, a good deal more has been actually paid in satisfaction of debts by Mr. Germer than the sum total of the E.A. Crowley estate; but before paying any debts I have always thought it necessary to get Mr. Germer's sanction, regarding the money as being really his.

Believe me,

Yours sincerely,

Louis Wilkinson

[178]