|The Rushden Echo, 8th February, 1907 & 15th February, 1927
Nurrish & Pallett - Bankruptcy
|8th February, 1907
SHOE TRADE FAILURE AT RUSHDEN
MESSRS. NURRISH, NURRISH, AND PALLETT
GIVE NOTICE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES - MEETING OF CREDITORS CALLED
A feeling of consternation was evoked in Rushden on Saturday last by the report that Messrs. Nurrish, Nurrish, and Pallett, shoe manufacturers, of Shirley Park, Rushden, had given a weeks notice to the whole of their employees, to the number of about 150. Unfortunately the report was only too true, though at first no reason could be assigned.
On Wednesday, however, we learned that the affairs of the firm had been placed in the hands of Messrs. A. C. Palmer and Co., Northampton, who issued the following circular to the creditors :-
St. Giles’ Chambers St. Giles’-street,
Northampton. February 5th 1907.
Dear Sir (or Sirs), --
We have to ask your attendance at a private meeting of the creditors of Messrs. Nurrish, Nurrish, and Pallett, shoe manufacturers of Rushden, which will be held at our Northampton offices, as above, on Thursday, February 14, at 12.15 o’clock, when the statement of affairs which we are preparing will be submitted, and the present financial position of the firm explained.
Please send us in course of post statement of your claim to ensure accuracy.
A. C. PALMER AND CO.
15th February, 1927
THE RUSHDEN SHOE TRADE FAILURE
MESSRS. NURRISH, NURRISH, AND PALLETT.
YESTERDAY’S MEETING OF CREDITORS - OFFER OF 10/- IN THE £ ACCEPTED
Yesterday the first meeting of the creditors of Messrs. Nurrish, Nurrish, and Pallett, shoe manufacturers, Shirley Park, Rushden, convened by Messrs. A. C. Palmer and Co., was held at Franklin’s Hotel, Northampton. Mr. C. Barker, representing Messrs. Boston and Sons, the largest creditors, presided.
Messrs. A. C. Palmer and Co. presented a statement of affairs, showing £7,257 due to unsecured trade creditors. The net assets were placed at £4,237/19/2 (including stock-in-trade £2,243/1/10 and book debts estimated to produce £980), leaving a deficiency of £3,019/10/8.
Mr. Palmer read the list of unsecured creditors including G. C. Cunnington, Rushden, £138; H. W. Chapman, £218; J. S. Clipson, Rushden, £12; William Hector, Higham Ferrers, £45; Kilsby and Co., Higham Ferrers, £521; Tailby and Putnam, Rushden, £19; Rushden Gas Company, £42.
Mr. Palmer said the
CREDITORS FULLY SECURED
were : Northamptonshire Union Bank, overdraft on the general account, £1,272 17s 3d. ; on property account, £1,207 11s 6d. ; bills expected to rank, £270. Against that they held deeds of land and buildings at Rushden, which came to £1,840, and they held the fixed plant and fixtures, £998 9s 6d. He (Mr. Palmer) was talking a lien on the British United Company’s machinery which was there. The Company issued the machines under license, and had power of cancellation. That course they had given notice to adopt. As a composition was suggested, the machines were worth to the debtors a considerable sum, but before a fresh license would be issued by the British United Co., or the licenses transferred, they must have their account paid in full. The Company’s claim was £192 9s., and he had estimated the value of the machines for the purpose of the debtors, if they continued, as £200. Being fixtures, this plant would also go to the bank, but would revert to the creditors.
Mr. Palmer then dealt with
which amounted to £4,252 gross, and proceeded to the deficiency account. After the fire, they got a settlement with the insurance company in October, 1904, and then prepared a balance-sheet, which showed that they had an ascertained surplus of £336 17s. 10d. The debtors rebuilt themselves a factory. They had been manufacturing in one or two smaller places in Rushden, which they hired, and a balance-sheet was prepared at the end of December, 1905, which showed a deficiency of £494. That at the time, he did not think seriously of, because they had all the time of waiting after the fire to get into working order again, and they had the removal expenses from three or four factories, so that it was only to be supposed there would have been a serious drop. Therefore, provided they had been able to pull themselves round, there was no reason why they should not recover from that loss.
Mr. Palmer then gave an account of the trading from January 1, 1906, to Feb. 9, 1907. They had stock on Jan. 6 of the value of £4,296. After debiting purchases, productive wages, and carriage of goods on the one side, and crediting sales amounting to £35,000, and the present stock on the other, it showed that they had made
A GROSS PROFIT
of £2,041. That was the weakness of the conduct of the business. The factory had been well conducted, and wages had been, if anything, under the usual percentage, but the gross profits had been shockingly bad. The selling seemed to have been weak. They had done with very few customers principally with three large factoring houses and had allowed prices to be dictated to them rather than putting their backs against the wall and getting a good profit. They were now endeavouring to alter the system of trading.
In answer to a creditor, Mr. Palmer said the turnover was £35,018. Against the £2,041 was debited the profit and loss account, which was of a very reasonable character, but showed a loss on the trading of £700. If they had had anything like the gross normal profit, there would have been a considerable net profit instead of a loss. The deficiency account showed the drawings of the three partners to have been, for a year and six weeks, £619 10s 0d. The three partners were John William Nurrish, John William Nurrish (cousin), and Samuel Arthur Pallett.
The meeting after discussion unanimously accepted the offer of 10s. in the £. in four instalments.
Transcribed by Gill Hollis