DIVISION OF ASSETS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23370, 9 December 1937, Page 12

DIVISION OF ASSETS

DISBANDED ROWING CLUB PROPOSAL DISAPPROVED (Per United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, Dec. 8. Have the members of an athletic club relying partly on public support for its existence any right to divide the assets of the club among themselves when it is disbanded? This question came before the Supreme Court to-day when an order was sought determining whether the surplus assets of the Lyttelton Rowing Club, which has gone out of existence, were subject to any trust. The surplus assets of the club are £250, and at the meeting at which it was agreed to wind up the club’s affairs it was decided to divide the surplus among its 11 members The liquidators of the assets of the club, which is incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act, sought the order of the court. The distribution as proposed by members of the club was opposed by Mr Henry Ryder and others, of L’ftelton, for whom Mr W. J. Sim appeared. The liquidators. Albert William Burbery, of Christchurch, a clerk and Stephen Rosmea Sinclair, of Lyttelton, a cabinetmaker, were represented bv Mr H. J. Upham. Mr Justice Northcroft, who was on the bench, gave no ruling on the law He expressed clear disapproval, however, of the action proposed by members of the club, and adjourned the hearing sine die to allow counsel for the liquidators to try to make arrangements for some other method of distribution.

“Are the young men aware ot wnat they propose to do, which is certainly reprehensible and calculated to alienate public sympathy? ” asked his Honor at one stage. “I may say that, unless the law compels me otherwise, Mr Ryder’s attitude is entirely proper” He said on another occasion: “It is undesirable that bv i stroke of chance these young men should divide the assets.”