COURT OF APPEAL

Evening Star, Issue 20556, 7 August 1930, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL

LIFE INTEREST ASSIGNMENT MONEYLENDER’S APPEAL FAILS [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON. August 6. Judgment in the case of Richardson v. Harris, which was heard before it on July 2. was delivered by the Court of Appeal to-day The judgment of the court was delivered by Mr Justice Adams. It was held that the appeal should be dismissed with c-sts in favour of the respondent in botn courts. The facts in this case are that the respondent, Thomas Harris, of Martinborough, a farm labourer, under the will of his father, was entitled, inter alia, to a life interest in the sum of £7,250. The respondent’s father, Charles Harris, died in January, 1913, and probate of his will was granted in the following month. On May 15, 1916, tho respondent was adjudged a bankrupt, and tho income coming to him from his father’s estate was duly paid to the Official Assignee. In June, 1918, some of the respondent’s creditors expressed dissatisfaction with his position, and threatened to sell the life interest in his father’s estate, but suggested to the respondent that he should himself endeavour to arrange a loan on this security. The respondent later proceeded to Wellington, and interviewed the appellant, Jbomas Richardson, a moneylender, for the purpose of obtaining this loan. The appellant refused to lend money on the security, but offered to purchase it, and it was ultimately arranged that he should purchase it for £1,750. The assignment of the life interest was accordingly executed, and the appellant also obtained the benefit of insurance policies on the respondent’s life, amounting to £2,000. In 1928, ten years after this transaction, the respondent issued a writ against the appellant alleging that the appellanthad taken advantage of his pecuniary position and had purchased the life interest at a gross undervalue, and asking that the transaction should be set aside At the original hearing, Mr Justice Herdman held that the respondent was of weak character and his intelligence was not of a high order, that Richardson stood in a position of superiority towards him, and that he had taken advantage of respondent’s pecuniary position Judgment was accordingly given setting the transaction aside and ordering the appellant to account for moneys received by him. It was from this" judgment that the appellant appealed.