SEQUEL TO A BANKRUPTCY. DISTRICT COURT DECISION REVERSED.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 58, 6 September 1909, Page 7

SEQUEL TO A BANKRUPTCY. DISTRICT COURT DECISION REVERSED.

I A case exhibiting certain peculiafiI ties was decided by the reserved judgment of Mr. Justice Cooper delivered in his absence on circuit. It was an appeal on questions of law from the judgment of the District Court of Hawera. The appellant was one James* Jamieson Campbell, the respondent the Official Assignee in the property of Robert Buckman. The facts set out in his Honour' 3 judgment were these. Buckman was adjudged bankrupt in January, 1908, on _a creditors' petition. In March, 1907, he had purchased a traction engine from Adam Burgess, of Palmerston North. The bailment provided for payment by three instalments. The first of £150 was paid and promissory notes for the other two instalments were dishonoured. At a meeting^ of creditors held in November, 1907, at Manaia, five being present, the appellant moved that the creditors offer A. Burgess the sum of £150 'for tho engine. The creditors agreed on the payment of therr debtb to transfer to Campbell all their rights to the engine. The £151) paid .to Burgess was entirely Campbell's money. The appellant sold the engine for £300, and retained a surplus of about a £100, alter paying the four creditors at the November meeting the full amount owing to them by the bankrupt. The Official Assignee claimed the sum of £300 received by the appellant from the sale of engine. The District Judge held that the appellant had committed a fraud on tn« general body of creditors. From tjiis judgment the appeal was made. The question was whether the engine was the property of Buckman or Burgess. , His Honour held that the appellant, though he had made a large profit, had not infringed any legal right of the general body of creditors. The engine was not Buckman's, and was not sold to the general body of creditors, or bought by the appellant upon any representation that he woidd account to the general body of creditors, or under any circumstances which could have constituted him a trustee for them. "The District Judge has characterised ihe transaction as a gross fraud/ said iiis Honour 5 "but I ani unable to come to the same conclusion. In my opinion, the appeal must be allowed with £15 15s costs in this court, and the motion which was heard by the District Court • dismissed with £10 10s costs and any court fees in that court paid by tho hppsllant." Mr. Skorrett, K.C., with him Mr. H. H. Ostler, appeared for the appellant, Mr. W. H. D. 801 l for the respondent. 1