Winslow History | Bankruptcy of Harry Ingram, 1894

Bankruptcy of Harry Ingram, 1894

Harry Ingram was the brother of the butcher George Ingram of 12 High Street. After working with his brother, he set up by himself in Church Street, where his misfortunes included a burglary. He was sued at Buckingham County Court, 29 Jan 1894, by Jane Myrtille Halsted for £51 13s. He broke off their engagement about three months earlier after nineteen years. He visited her nearly every night at her lodgings at Miss Bathe’s (5 Market Square). She lent him £45 in 1879 when he was still a butcher, and other money later, some of which was repaid, but they flatly contradicted each other about repayments. The judge decided in favour of Miss Halsted, and ordered Ingram to pay the money and costs. That led to the following case.

Buckingham Advertiser, 24 Feb 1894

County Court, Banbury

Re HARRY INGRAM, Church Street, Winslow, milk seller. The summary of debtor’s statement of affairs discloses gross liabilities amounting to £363/16/-, which are expected to rank at £349/11, the deficiency is put at £221/3/2. The debtor alleges the cause of his failure to be losses in cattle, bad debts, and insufficient trade. The Official Receiver’s observations are - The receiving order was made on debtor’s own petition. The debtor tells me he is a bachelor, and about 45 years of age, and that some years prior to his beginning business as a milk seller he was a butcher at Winslow. About three years ago, he borrowed from his uncle £200 to start in the milk trade, of which amount £50 seems to have been repaid. He kept a ledger and day book, but no cash book, nor any banking account. In the year 1879, and again in 1883, debtor borrowed money from the lady he had engaged to marry, amounting in all to some £65. This was reduced by a few payments to a sum of about £50, and was the subject of an action tried at Buckingham at the end of last month. The defendant lost the action and incurred heavy expenses by his defence. Probably it was the impending execution which led to his filing his petition. The following is a summary of the debtor’s deficiency account:- 1873, March 25, to March 25, 1893- Excess assets, £15; net profits of business (averaging £122/8/7 per annum), £2,577/1/6; deficiency, as above, £291/3/2; total, £2,883/4/8. Bad debts, £93/7/8; 1873 to 1892, household expenses averaging £121/19/- per annum, £2,561; Miss Halstead’s action costs £38/7/-; pigs, loss by swine fever, £51/10; bullock and cow £15; horses, £59; 1891, stolen from house, £45; total £2,883/4/3. These detailed large summaries of an account extending over 21 years are suspicious, certainly they do not agree, as far as they go, with the information debtor originally gave me. Nor does the value of the furniture and book debts.