THEFTS FROM A BANK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19502, 4 December 1926, Page 14

THEFTS FROM A BANK.

OFFENOES BY MANACSER, SEQUEL TO HIS BANKRUPTCY. THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSETS. [BX TELEGRAPH. —OWN COJUECSSPONDENT. ] NEW PLYMOUTH, Friday. A sequel to an embezzlement case in Taranaki last year was heard in the Supreme Court to-day. Tho case was a motion by the deputy-official assignee in the bankrupt estate of William Iverr, formerly manager of tho Union Bank of Australia at Stratford, to have certain documents relating to the assignment o£, the estate declared void on the ground that they were fraudulent. Kerr, who had occupied the position of manager of the Stratford branch of the bank for five years {jrion to July, 1925, entered into partnership with T. A. Sullivan and J, H. Robson in acquiring some timber rights in the South Island. R. R. Binnie was brought into tho matter through Kerr borrowing from him £IOOO in order to assist in providing his share of the purchase price of the timber rights. Kerr was subsequently made bankrupt and was also convicted on a series of charges of the theft of moneys from tho bank. It was during tho investigation of tho affairs of Kerr with his bank and tho discovery of the full extent of the losses that Kerr, by deed of assignment, made over all his property, including his interest in tho timber rights, to the bank. Tho deed was executed on July 9, 1925, and Kerr was adjudicated a bankrupt on August 12, 1925. It was therefore alleged that tho assignment was fraudulent and void. Three grounds were submitted for attacking the deed of assignment. The first was that it was a fraudulent transfer of substantially tho wholo of Kerr's property and was therefore an act of bankruptcy; secondly, that it gave fraudulent preference; and thirdly, that it was void. Mr. R. H. Quilliam, who appeared in support of the motion, admitted that the case rested practically on tho first ground. The timber rights had been bought in Sullivan's name, who, with Robson, was to have one-sixth share in the venture. The remaining proportion belonged to Keny which he acquired with money borrowed from Binnie, and with what he took from the bank. Kerr's only other* asset was property in Scotland valued ait £llO. This, with his share in the timber rights, was transferred to the bank when the discovery was made that Kerr had stolen some of its moneys. The question was what was the amount of Kerr's share and whether tho transfer to the bank was legal. Mr. H. F.' O'Lcary, for tho back, con-j tended that outside creditors had no claim' because there was none of Kerr's own cash in the transactions. Kerr had stolen money from tho bank, which was, counsel submitted, entitled to' tho assets. His Hopor .reserved his decision.