£5,000 GIFTS BY BARONET

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 March 1933, Page 9

£5,000 GIFTS BY BARONET

SIR E. M. EDGAR AND A NURSE.

LONDON, January 17.

Gifts of a total value of £5OOO made by Sir Edward Mackay Edgar to a nurse were referred to in the Chancery Division yesterday. A motion arising out of the bankruptcy of Sir Edward came before Mr. Justice Farwell, sitting in bankruptcy. Mr. Gilbert Beyfus, for the trustee in the bankruptcy, said that the motion was to recover articles given by Sir Edward to respondent, Miss Jane Burns Inglis. Sir Edward presented his petition in August, 1931, an order of adjudication being made on the same day. In 192 S he was ill in a London nursing home, and was attended by several nurses, among whom was Miss Inglis. In September of that year he left the home, and later Miss Inglis also left to attend him, first at his flat in Mount-street and afterwards on a journey to British Columbia. Practically up to the date of the bankruptcy and for some time onward she lived in the same house or accompanied him on journeys. In October, 1928, Sir Edward gave Miss Inglis a platinum, diamond and emerald wrist watch. He seemed to have been a man of very generous instincts. In February, 1929, he gave Miss Inglis a. necklace of ninety-nine pearls and a diamond snap which cost £2050, and in May, 1929, a diamond brooch costing £155 and a singlestone diamond ring costing £1,450. In August of the same year he-gave her silver and plate of the value of £l7'B. A somewhat remarkable transaction took place in October, 1929. In April Miss Inglis had opened a credit account with Debenham and Freebody. In June it stood at £143, which was paid by a cheque of Sir Edward’s. By October 23 the account had risen to £452, and Sir Edward paid £2OO off it. On October 21 Miss Inglis had ordered an ermine coat with sable collar to be made out of her own sable skins for 650gns. On October 25, a payment of £2OO having been made, a saleswoman took the coat to a flat in Grafton-street to show it to Miss Inglis. The latter called in Sir Edward, who expressed his approval of it, hut suggested that it needed, the addition of sable cuffs. Even the saleswoman was apparently aghast at the price, stating that it would take eight skins costing £lOO each. No actual order was given.’ The question of the use of silver fox fur was raised, and the matter left in abeyance. Miss Inglis afterwards gave Debenham and Freebody an order for £ 1732. He (Mr. Beyfus) asked the Court io assume that this was a present.-from Sir Edward. Later Debenhams urged Miss Inglis to pay something, if not the whole. Sir Edward met their representative, and agreed to give them a series of bills to cover the whole of her indebtedness to Debenhams and a small account of his wife's. FURS WORTH £1752. Of those bills he had paid £lOOO when his bankruptcy supervened. DebenliuiTis sued Miss Inglis on the basis that she remained liable. Her contention was. however, upheld by the judge. In the result she obtained furs of the value of £1752 at a cost to Sir Edward of £lOOO and to herself of nothing, followed by a debt provable in his bankruptcy.

Miss Inglis, having given evidence, Mr. Tindale Davis, on her behalf, said that so far as the jewellery was concerned there was no suggestion of mala tides, and it was contended that there was ample consideration if Sir Edward gave Miss Inglis the jewellery for her services as a nurse.

Mr. Justice Farwell said that if there had been evidence that it had been arranged between Miss Inglis and Sir Edward that she should receive no regular remuenration, but that he would reward her by making presents, ho (the judge) would find no grave difficulty in concluding that the jewellery was in the nature of remuneration or quid pro quo. But there was not a tittle of evidence of that sort, and he could only conclude that the reason for the gifts was gratitude. The trustee was entitled to recover such of the jewellery as he could from the lady. With reference to the articles of silver, etc., she had offered to give up whatever there was stored in her name.

That left the extraordinary transaction regarding the furs. His lordship decided, that this part of the trustee’s claim failed. if appeared that Miss Inglis gave- the order for the furs herself, and could not conclude that they were a. present from Sir Edward. An order was made accordingly.