"WENT MERRILY”

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11708, 21 December 1923, Page 7

"WENT MERRILY”

WHILE MONEY LASTED MAORI BANKRUPTCY REVEALS INTERESTING POSITION JURGE’S CAUSTIC REMARKS. “While the money lasted it went merrily,” so declared Mr Justice Chapman, in a written Judgment with inference to the affairs of a Maori bankrupt, a matter that came before him in the Taranaki district. “I have already referred to the in stance of this Maori labourer buying a coat described as a musk-ox coat for £35,” said His Honour. “. . . . If a sheepfarmer in a good year or a sharebroker when speculation was active bought such a coat to wear when motoring, the public verdict- on seeing him at Trentham or Ellerslie would be that he must be well off. This view can have little analogy to the case o! a bankrupt Maori labourer at Rahotu or Parihaka.” The reasonableness of the price had nothing to do with this case, but when handed in as a piece of evidence showing the kind of thing that went on with a Maori labourer when dealing with money concealed in his wife’s name, with the knowledge of the defendant whose agents knew that he was an undischarged bankrupt, the most natural inquiry to the judge was whether the defendant could claim that this was a bona-fide transaction. ©OME PURCHASES. “It does not stand alone. . . . While th 6 money lasted it went merrily. . . . For the month of August goods soid amounted 10 nearly £l5O and there were seven payments of cash amounting_ to £173 or over. A rug costing £25 was said to be a- black opossum rug, and sold probably at a reasonable price. Another rug described as a goat-sldn cost £l2 or £l4. This did not happen in the main street of a oity, but in defendant’s store at Rahotu. Mr Bell on this, remarks: ‘When they have the money they order like this.' Bell did not know that ho was selling to an undischarged bankrupt but the Hughsons did, and through them the company knew where the money that was being spent in this way was coming from.” The story was a curious one, and gives some idea as to the usual Maori s .capacity for looking after lids money. The native in question is reported to have declared that “A Maori cannot hold money long!” He spoke from experience. The action was brought by the Official Assignee of a Maori named Atutalu Rukuwa-i, against a private company called Ltd., which carries on a business at -Rahotu, in Taranaki, as clothier, storekeeper, gen oral merchant and land agent. The object was to recover certain sums which were or should be treated as assets in the bankrupt estate, found to have readied the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff said he had paid dividends on Atutahi’s estate at the rate of 15s in the £. This had involved £536 9b 6d. Expenses ha-d been incurred totalling £43 10s. The plaintiff in all made out his right to recover £315 3s 4d. SALE TO THE GROWN. The bankrupt and his brother, Iwikahu, were joint owners of land at Panhaka which came under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Acts of 1881 and 1892 and was leased to one Joll. It fell within the class of land that a native owner is, under the Native Land Act, 1913, empowered to sell to fine Crown, and the Crown is entitled to buy. Atutahi became bankrupt in January, 1918. The two Hugh00ns, father and eon, said His Honour, who later formed the defendant company and now held most of the shares issued by it, knew of the bankruptcy, as did also the company of which they Were the only directors and officers. The evidence was conclusive as to this. The estate bad ®o far paid 15s in the £. The bankrupt until August, 1920, ■still had this land which was protected from hie creditors and which Joll was ready to buy. The company was incorporated in 1919, taking over the business of Thomas Poole Hughson.

WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. “This was an example of what might happen and did happen,” said His Honour, who remarked that part of the company’s business was that of a land agent, which apparently became important when it became known that tenants holding this class of land under lease could acquire the freehold ill rough the Government. There was a negotiation with Joll known to the Government land purchase officer. The rate of such sales was fixed for that office by valuationIt only bought at that rate and sold at the same rate, but Maoris through land ■gents were asking more; and a. purchaser with a short term to run was generally willing to give more to prevent a stranger coming in. In - the result the agreement reached for the purchase of Atutahi’s land was that the Government should pay him £720 Os 6d and collect this from the purchaser, while the purchaser paid Atu--1 tahi another £lB9 14s to induoe him to sell. The inquiry involved in this action related to two cheques for these two sums. They were both received by Atutahi from the Government official on August 4th, 1920. The plaintiff alleged that on that day and divers other days they were received by the defendant from Atutahi in fraud of the plaintiff and the creditors of the Maori. Two persons who appeared in prominent parts in the narrative were Hineteuru Kara, wife of Atutahi, and Kaitapapa Rangitawa, her uncle. A YOUNG WIFE. “In connection with their respeotive parts in the transaction, it is to be borne in mind that she was married to Atutahi in the same year in which the transactions in question were carried out.” She was then 15 years old. Kaitapapa was Hineteuru’s uncle. This fact was relied on in order to ehow that 6he was acting under independent advice in what she did in the matter. It was, however, shown that Kaitapapa was a partner of the defendant company in its land agency transactions, and in this case was to receive, and did, in fact, receive, half of the commission earned by means of the completion of the sale to Joll. The sale was by Atutahi and his brother Iwikahu. It was Hot clear whether Kaitapapa received any commission on Iwikahu’s share. “I cannot help reviewing the whole story and considering how payment of a debt, which, was a bad debt until the land was sold, was obtained, and why aid was lent to th*- design of concealing the assets and also recalling the lavish expenditure of Atutahi and his wife in this store while the money lasted, and when these facts are brought together I cannot help considering why an answer which successfully misled the solicitors was given,” said HU Honour, after dealing very fully with the facts of the case. “There are reasons for thinking

that the defendant’s directors were not quite at ease as to their position. “I have considered the whole position, and have come to the conclusion that there is a want of bona fidee in defendant’s conduct which prevents the doctrine relied on from operating, and that the agents of the defendant knew when they received this money that it was part of the estate of the bankrupt, and that the Assignee would have known this and claimed it bnt for the assistance given by the defendant to the Maoris in concealing it, and, further, that the so-called gift to Hineteuru was never intended to be a gift, but only a pretext to enable Atutahi to squander the money.” His Honour gave judgment for the sum claimed, with interest from August sth, 1920, at 6 per cent. REGARDING AN APPEAL. As a question might be raised in case of an appeal, eaid Mr Justice Chapman, as to whether the Assignee’s claim might hot have been larger, he preferred to rest his judgment on the plaintiff’s claim. “But I wish it to be understood, in case an amendment is sought later, that nothing I have said or done stands in the way of its being made,” he added. Solicitors for the plaintiff weTe Watson and Billing, of New Plymouth, and for the defendants (Hughson’B, Ltd.), Roy, Nicholson, and Bennett, also of New Plymouth.