A £17,000 CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 50, 27 August 1925, Page 6

A £17,000 CLAIM

AGAINST PUBLIC TRUSTEE

ECHO OF THE WAR

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT BY

CONSENT.

A sequel to action taken by the Public Trustee under the War Regulations Act in regard to enemy property was heard in the Supreme Court today, when the case of Schroeder v. The Public Trustee was called.

Mr. Justice Ostler was on the Bench. Mr. H. F: O'Leary appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. A. Fair, K.C., for the Attorney-General, and Mr. G. G. Rose for the Public Tim-tee.

The facts of the case showed that during the war the Public Trustee, acting under the powers given to him by the War Regulations Act, took possession of the New Zealand assets of the German firm of Hardt and Co. This firm had a branch in Sydney, which controlled the New Zealand branch, the manager in Sydney being Eugene Schroeder. The Public Trustee liquidated the business, and had in his hands £17,000, representing the proceeds of the liquidation.

Shortly after the war broke out, Hardt and Co., acting through an attorney in' New South Wales, purported to sell to Schroeder the whole of the Australian and New Zealand business on terms that the purchase price was not to be payable till the termination of the war. This agreement was approved by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. An action was brought by Schroeder against the Public Trustee and the Attorney-General of New Zealand, asking for a declaration' that the £17,000 held by the Public Trustee, belonged to the plaintiff on the ground that when the Public Trustee took- possession of the New Zealand business ■of Hardt and Co. that business had already been sold to the plaintiff by the German owners, and that he, Schroeder, was a naturalised British subject.

The Public Trustee and the AttorneyGeneral filed a defence denying that the purported sale was a bona fide one, and further, that if such'sale were bona fide, it was a nullity, in so far as any assets of tha firm in New Zealand were concerned, because such sale had not been consented to by the Attorney-Gen-eral of New Zealand.

.When the case was called to-day, Mr. O'Leary explained that the proceedings were brought by the plaintiff against the Public Trustee as Custodian, of Enemy Property and Controller of tho New Zealand Clearing House, the amount involved being £17,000. The Attorney-General was also joined as a defendant. Voluminous evidence was taken in Sydney last, year, but early this year, counsel said, he received instructions not to proceed with the action. It had been decided not to discontinue the proceedings, but that the action should be dismissed, judgment being given for the defendants by arrangement between the plaintiff and the Crown, and that no costs be asked for.

Mr. Fair said he would prefer that judgment should be entered for the defendants.

His Honour accordingly entered judgment for the defendant, by consent.