Ownership of Yacht Morewa

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 65, 18 March 1937, Page 8

Ownership of Yacht Morewa

McARTHUR CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT. Per Pres* ausnela tlon. WELLINGTON, Last Night. The Appeal Court this afternoon continued hearing the appeal of the Pacific Exploration Co., Ltd. (in liquidation), and the Sterling Investments Company (N.Z.), Ltd. (in liquidation) v. McArthur. In advancing his argument on behalf of respondent, Mr R. E. Tripe submitted that the trial Judge had negatived fraud, as he was entitled, and in counsel's contention was bound to do as a matter of law, in tho circumstances of j the case and on the facts. Th 6 following facts had been found in favour ot respondent, and the Court of Appeal would not disturb these findings without very good cause: (1) That on or before December 1, 1933, it was agreed by the Pacific Company and McArthur that he should bny the yacht in consideration of his assuming the company's liability for expenditure on it; (2) that on or about December, 16, 1933, McArthur, with the full consent of the Pacific Company registered the yacht in his name as owner; (3) that on ' some date prior to February 28, 1934, McArthur, as between the Pacific Company and himself, had assumed the liability of the Pacific Company in connection with the cost of the yacht; (4) that at all material times up to February 28, 1934, McArthur held £60,000 of the Sterling Company’s debentures; (5) that in exchange for the cancellation of these debentures, the Sterling Company transferred to McArthur on February 28,1934, certain assets, including all accounts owing to it by the Pacific Company, which accounts included the account for the yacht. As a result of the last transaction, the liability of McArthur in respect of the Pacific Company's debt for the yacht had become discharged. On these facts it was urged that consideration for the transfer to him of the yacht had clearly been given by respondent. With regard to tho weight to be given to evidence adduced at the trial, the following submissions were made: That the evidence given by McArthur in support of his case had not been shaken, that the evidence of the two public accountants (Messrs R. A. Glen and D. G. Johnston) called by respondent was entitled to the greatest weight, that McArthur's evidence was supported by the books of account and records put in at the trial, that his evidence was supported by the reason able probabilities of case, that his evidence was further supported by the fact, as found, that the appellant com panies actually benefited by the transactions in question. As against respondent's case, the appellant companies rested their claim on the interpretation made by one of their servants of a single journal entry, such journal entry having been made at a date later than tho transactions it purported to refer to, which had no explanatory narrative and which was consistent with respondent's own evidence. Decision was reserved.