DISPUTED OWNERSHIP

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 303, 19 December 1912, Page 5

DISPUTED OWNERSHIP

OF HIRE PURCHASE GOODS. INTERESTING TO CREDITORS. An important point of particular interest to the commercial community was argued this morning at the Supreme Court before his Honor Mr Justice Cooper. The case was that of tiie Official Assignee in the estate of Thomas Wylie (bankrupt) v. the Massey-Harris Company, motion under section 9 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1908 for an order declaring that a single-furrow plough and a drill worth about £37 taken by Mas-sey-Harris Company was the property of , the bankrupt passing to the Official Assignee, and further requiring MasseyHarris to forthwith hand over the goods or their equivalent value. Mr J. R. Heed, K.C., and Mr C. R. Walker appeared for the Official Assagneje, and the Mas6«?y-Harris Company was represented by "Mr Fred Earl, X.C, and Mr Moore. Mr Reed explained that Wylie had purchased from Massey-Harris Company under a hire-purchase agreement a plough and a drill. About half the in-stalmen-ts had been paid when Wylie was adjudged a bankrupt, and the goods were r£sume?d by Maseey-Harris. It was admitted that the agreement was the ordinary hire agreement, and it was quite cleaT that under suoh agreement tip ownership did not pass to the bankrupt but remained with Massey-Harris, and that the goods were held by the permission of Massey-Harris. His Honor said the point seeuneal to be whether the goods were, in the -words of the Bankruptcy Act, "in the order and disposition of the bankrupt." The whole question was whether there was such a custom in regard to the line of agricultural -implermsnts that the Court could take judicial notice of, and whether it removed the goods from the clause in the Bankruptcy Act referring to "reputed ownership." Mr Reed eaid it must be proved that the custom was so notorious that creditors should be reasonably presumed to be aware of it. That was the only way in which reputed ownership could be rebutted. Counsel said he could not understand why such goods as .those in dispute were not brought under the Chattels Act. His Honor supposed that people did not want their eresdit damagesd by having their names published. Mr Reed remarked that was just what the Act was intended to prevent, namely, thai pejople should not get an undue amount of cresiii on the strength of they ostensibly owned. Counsel -went on to read from a large bundle of affidavits to show that the hire custom was not known to well-known tradespeople in Auckland, who might reasonably be expected to have knowledge of it if it were notorious. His Honor pointed out .that MaseeyHarris had its head-quarters in Christchurch, and it was quite conceivable that a custom might be known in the South and not in .the Auckland district. Mr Earl argued that the affidavits filed by Massey-Harris were quite sufficient to prove the existence of the custom, whieA would take the goods out of the doctrine of reputed ownership. The evidence of the affidavits was sufficient to show that a position had been reached where creditors ought not to rely on goods of the kind in dispute being the property of those in whose possession t'hev happened to be. His Honor said it was nejcesoary to show that the custom prevailed in the Auckland district. Mr Earl contended that it was enough for him to show that the cu-tom was generally known, and was not infrequently followed. Mr Earl put in some 40 affidavits from business people to show that the system of selling agricultural implements on the time system was generally known in the j particular trade in which Wylie was eni gaged. It was only necessary to prove I that it was generally known "in a par- | ticularly trade,*' and not to every person ; likely to have business dealings with ! Wylie. I His Honor said he would have to read through the immense number of affidavits Jin order to determine how far Massey Harris had brought themselves within the class of custom which entitled them to obtain possession of the goods. The law on the point was clear, and the matter reduced itself into a bare question oi fact. Ha woBJd gte fail dseu_<n j