ROWING CLUB’S ASSETS

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22271, 9 December 1937, Page 4

ROWING CLUB’S ASSETS

PROPOSED DIVISION AMONG MEMBERS SUPREME COURT ASKED FOR RULING DISAPPROVAL EXPRESSED RV JUDGE Have the member* of en athletic club relying partly on public support for its existence any right to divide the assets of the club among themselves when it is disbanded? This question came before the Supreme Court yesterday, when an order was sought determining whether the surplus assets of the Lyttelton Rowing Club, which has gone out of existence, were subject to any trust. The surplus assets of the club are £280: and at the meeting at which it was agreed to wind up its affairs it was decided to divide the surplus among its 11 members. The liquidators of the assets of the club, which is incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act, sought the order of the Court. The distribution, as proposed by members of the club, was opposed by Henry Ryder and others, of Lyttelton, for whom Mr W. J. Sim appeared. The liquidators, Albert William Burbery, of Christchurch, clerk, and Stephen Rosmea Sinclair, of Lyttelton, cabinetmaker, were represented by Mr J. H. Upham. Mr Justice Northcroft. who was on the bench, gave no ruling on the law. He expressed clear disapproval, however, of the action proposed by members of the club, and adjourned the hearing sine die to allow counsel for the liquidators to try to make arrangements for some other method of distribution. "Are the young men aware of what they propose to do, which is certainly reprehensible and calculated to alienate public sympathy?’’asked his Honour at one stage. “I may say that unless the law compels me otherwise, Mr Ryder's attitude is entirely proper,” he said on another occasion. “It is undesirable that by a stroke of chance these young men . should divide the assets.” Onus of Proof of Trust Mr Upham said that the onus was on Mr Sim to prove that a trust existed, The application was made under the Incorporated Societies Act, and the provisions of the Religious, Educational, and Charitable Trusts Act did not apply to the present case. T?he disposal of the assets could be made according to the rules of the club, and the rules provided that the assets could be divided among the members. The only modification could be that the disposal of the funds was subject to a trust, but it was the duty of the objectors to prove that there was such a trust. "I submit that there is no tryst attached to any of these assets,” added Mr Upham. The Lyttelton Rowing Club, he said, was founded as an in-

corporatcd society in 1922. For some years before that there was an unincorporated club of the same name, but it died in 1922 and the new club came into being. The funds of the club had been built up by subscriptions, regattas, dances, ana donations from such officers as presidents and vice-presi-dents and the public. Mr Sim commented that another club in Lyttelton had been wound up and its assets distributed. That had made Lyttelton people chary of subscribing to sports. Attitude Approved

At this stage his Honour expressed his approval of the attitude taken by those who objected to the distribution. “It is not desirable that the few remaining young men in this club should divide the assets,” he said. “It dries up public support for these organisations. It is undesirable that by a stroke of chance these young men should divide the assets. It might even happen that any mercenarytpinded people might seize an opportunity of winding up a club," Mr Sim said be understood there were about 12 members of the club at the time of liquidation, and that about six were present at the meeting at which it was decided to divide the assets. The motion to divide the money was carried by only one vote. “The fact that the public has given directly and indirectly is surely an indication that the public sympathised with the promotion of rowing among these young men,’’ his Honour said, “It was not contemplated that the few remaining should capitalise the generosity of the public. “Should not the money be used for some similar purpose rather than go to those who happen to remain In the club?" he asked. “There is a Lyttelton regatta now. I have been asked to subscribe, and I have subscribed because I wish to help the sport of rowing—not to put money in the pockets of people five or 10 years hence." Mr Upham explained that the liquidators took no stand about the method of distribution. They asked for the Court’s ruling. No trust could bo shown to apply to the funds. Mr Sim: Four-elevenths of the club’s funds have come from members’ subscriptions and seven-elevenths from outside sources. Legislature’s Intention His Honour; If the law is not with you, Mr Sim, and I will express no opinion about that, it seems it must indicate that the law never contemplated a group of men getting together and taking such action. I have never heard of such an action before. Mr Sim; It has been done once before in Lyttelton, and the people are tired of it. Mr Sim went on to submit that a trust for the public had been constituted by the action of the citizens of Lyttelton in giving assistance to establish the club. “Before you go any further, cap you tell me if the decision of these young men is irrevocable?” asked his Honour. “I cannot help thinking that they do not realise what they are trying to do. Is it possible that if the position was explained to them they would adhere to their decision, which is most reprehensible and clearly in violation of what the public wished when it gave assistance?” Mr Upham: I am quite sure they would follow your Honour's indication if it was placed before them. I do not think they would wish to do anything your Honour considers reprehensible. On bis Honour’s suggestion, Mr Upham agreed to discuss the matter With the liquidators to see if some other method of distribution could be found.