THE STUDENTS OF TRUTH.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8844, 13 July 1894, Page 6

THE STUDENTS OF TRUTH.

At the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court yesterday, before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M., argument was taken in a case in which Mrs Elizabeth Mary Ingram sued the Board of Trustees of the " Students of Tru»h," an incorporated body, for £12, beiug one half year's interest at the rate of 6 per ceut. per annum, on eighb debentures of £50 each, which she had purchased from former trustees whose functions had by deed devolved on the defendants. Each debenture bore a clause, "All liability of the trustees with regard to this debenture is restricted to the amount of funds in their hands belonging to the Students of Trubh." The defendants took their stand on this clause, and alleged tbat inasmuch as the Board had no money in hand when the interest fell due they were nob liable. Evidence had been taken on July sth. The whole question ou which the decision in this case rested was the interpretation of the word " funds." Mr yon Haast argued that the word meant all available assets, and under this interpretation anything which could be converted into money was liable tor theliquidatiouof this claim. Theassetsin this trust were the equities of redemption iv the properties known as the Temple of Truth, the Kindergarten School and the Social Hall, together with the land on which they stand, and in an organ on _ii of which were hens. Also, apart from these there were chairs in the Temple of Truth bought at £270, over which there was no lien. All these were realisable and were liable to be converted for the purpose of liquidating this claim. If this were not so theu the trustees might evade any payment on the debentures by converting any cash that might come to them into chattels or buildings. Counsel quoted from Webster and other authorities showing that his contention as to the meaning of the word was sound, down to its root. Summarised, therefore, his arguments were that the present Board were liable for the acts of their predecessors, and that all the assets, bub more particularly the chairs, were available for the purposes of the payment of interest on the debentures. Mr Bruges, for the defence, said that the members of the Board did not admit any legal obligation whatever to pay this claim ; they considered that this was an attempt to obtaiu a preferential payment, and in the interests of the other debenture holders they were determined to take all possible objections, technical or otherwise. He contended that the first trustees were liable. The contract was made wibh them. The subsequent incorporation of some of their number with others as a Board had been done outside the consent of the plaintiff and did not affect her relations wibh the first trustees ,* the Board had not adopted the act of their predecessors and were not liable for it; "the debentures did nob specifically charge any property, they simply said " we will pay when we are able " ana no more. Shortly, as regards the above contentions, Mrs Ingram had sued the wrong body. She should have brought her action against the first trustees, who, if they had to pay, could claim indemnification from their sacc.ssors. Mr Bruges went on to argue that it must be shown that the Board were able to pay. That was to say, that their assets were worth more than their liabilities; there was no evidence as to that. "Funds in hand," in this case, meant money; the plaintiff knowing that ib bore that meaning, she accepted the risk and was bound Ly the letter of the debentures. He went so far as tc say that if the trustees so manipulated their revenue as to never have any cash in hand, the debenture holders had no remedy againsb them. Debenture holders could have no claim on anything but the Temple property, and there was a large deficit on thab account both on capital and income, therefore the Board had no ability to pay. The Board had not anything to do with the Kindergarten property, which could not be held to be liable as an asset. Counsel in the course of their arguments quoted a large number of authorities, and Mr Beetham held over judgment.