APPEAL COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 11 April 1934, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

IMPORTANT POINT OF ISSUE UNDISCLOSED TRUST MONEYS (By Telegraph—Press Association) WELLINGTON, This Day. The Appeal Court to-day is hearing a case involving an important point as to legality of undisclosed trust nioneys deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank on account of another person when already the depositor is obtaining in m. own account the full amount of interest allowed by the regulations. The facts as stated by Mr W. E. Leicester, connsel for appellant, are that the pm ties, Vito Antonio Truth, ot Wellington, jeweller, appellant, and Helen Truda, respondent, were married at Southampton in November, 1920 and then went to the estate of appellants father in Traumotola, Italy. The estate, consisting of a farm, two vineyards, and a house, were promised to appellant if he staved with his father, then an aged mail of over 80. Respondent was a beneficiary and a trustee in a large New Zealand estate of £50,000. and desue< to come back to New Zealand Appellant accompanied her. Appellant s fatliei died in October, 1923. altering Ins will just before and leaving Ins estate to appellant’s sister. Arguments took place between the parties over this loss to appellant through coming'back to New Zealand, and it was alleged by a appellant that £SOO paid in different amounts between May, 1928, and April,. 1929. by respondent into appellant’s savings bank accounts were gifts to make up the loss. „ , Mr Justice McGregor,, from whose judgment the appeal is now brought, and who gave judgment for respondent for £SOO but not, for interest, did not accept the, defence of a gift. The story told bv respondent was that at the. end of March, 1928, she had a credit of £2704 in her Post Office account, and read the gazetted notice bv the Minister of Finance that after Ist April, 1928, no interest was payable ill respect of moneys in excess of £2OOO lodged to her account. Respondent was unable to make the declaration necessary on opening a new account that she was not directly interested in moneys in another account. The statutory declaration necessary also disbarred another person opening a trust account for respondent. In order to avoid interest restrictions, respondent declared she paid £SOO into her husband’s account on the arrangement that the moneys were to be held intact and that Post Office interest was to he paid to her. Counsel contended that this contract of trust was for the purpose expressly or impliedly forbidden by the Post and ■ Telegraph Act, 1928, and as such was illegal and, alternatively, was for the purpose, of committing fraud upon the Post Office. It was suggested that if this were found the Court could not assist respondent to recover these moneys, and that the judgment in the Court below should have been one of non-suit.

Mr F. W. Schramm (Auckland) and Mr A. 17. Hogg are appearing• for respondent. The case is proceeding.