BANKRUPT STOCK DEALER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20500, 30 August 1928, Page 6

BANKRUPT STOCK DEALER.

WAGES PAYMENT TO SCN,

CLAIM BY ASSIGNEE F : *

(Special to Daily Txju-s

CHRISTCHURCH, August 29. The payment by a father to his son of a sum of £4OO just prior to his filing in bankruptcy and the subsequent claim by the official assignee for that sum was the subject of an action heard by Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiff was the official assignee in the bankrupt estate of Emerson Bowes (Mr A. T. Donnelly), and the defendant was Emerson John Bowes, stock dealer, Christchurch (Mr J. D. Hutchison).

It was claimed that on June 15, 1927, Bowes was adjudged bankrupt! About January, 1927, it was said that bankrupt had lent or advanced £4OO to his sou, the defendant. The plaintiff had claimed the £4OO, but the defendant had refused to pay. It was therefore claimed that the £4OO should be handed over with interest from February 1, 1927, at the rate of 6 per cent. The defence set out that the money was not lent to the defendant. In January, 1927, bankrupt was indebted to the defendant for the sum of £441 as the balance of wages while employed by bankrupt. Bankrupt paid Die defendant £4OO ou account, and subsequent to this bankrupt bad become indebted to the defendant for a further £175 Bs.

Mr Donnelly said that the defendant's father had received advances from the New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Association up to £12,000 for the purchase of stock. Under that arrangement the sum of £4OO had been paid into the father's account. Mr W. Machin, general manager of the association, later discovered that the £4OO had been paid to the son. At that time the defendant was building a house and needed the money to pay the builders. At a meeting of the father's creditors the son had stated that he received the money in payment of wages. There had come to hand recently a receipt which was stated to be for the amount paid by the father to the son “ on account of wages owing,” and it was dated six months before the bankruptcy. It was a suspicious document, as one would not expect a receipt from a father to the son in the circumstances. William Machin said that in December, 1926, the father owed the association between £2OOO and £3OOO. He had informed witness that he wished to purchase £6OOO worth of sheep, and that the association had trusted him before, and be hoped that it would do so again. The advance of £4OO was also agreed on and was paid into his account. The money would not have been advanced against the father’s private debt as the advances were against sheep. When the accounts were checked the £4OO was noticed, against which there were no sheep. Mr Hutchison submitted that toe cape rested on the statements alleged to have been made by defendant to the officers of the Farmers’ Co-operative Association. So far as the official assignee was concerned, the defendant had set up the case which he was now putting torward. The money was for wages, and was not a loan. , The defendant, in evidence, stated that he had been in bis father’s employment from 1922 till 1927, and in January, 1927, there was a sum of about £441 due to him as balance of wages and commissions earned. The defendant was emShatic that the £4OO he received from is father was for wages due. Emerson Bowes, father of the defendant, said fiat the reason why he had not produced the receipt from his son for the £4OO previously was that he had never been asked for it, and he did not think any advantage would be gained _ in doing so. . , To Mr Donnelly, witness said that at the time the payment was made his son was being pressed by his builder, so they had had a “squaring up.” * In giving judgment, his Honor said that he had no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the plaintiff, which stood contradicted by the defendant. There were some very unsatisfactory circumstances in the evidence on the side of defendant, such as the nature of the entries in the book produced and the failure to produce the receipt for the money until that day. However, his Honor would have to hold in accordance with the evidence that' there was, a contract for employment. That meant that the £4OO appeared to have been owing by * bankrupt to defendant’ at the time when that sum was paid over. No good purpose would be served by his Honor speaking on the propriety or impropriety of the paying of the sum from the Farmers’ Co-operative Association. That was a matter that had more hearing on the bankruptcy than on the present case. If the contract were found true the defendant was entitled to say that the £4OO was paid in satisfaction of the actual debt. The defendant was therefore entitled ,to judgment. Xo costs ■would be alloived.