BANKRUPTCY CASE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17178, 7 February 1930, Page 2

BANKRUPTCY CASE

POUR ALLEGED BREACHES I DISPOSAL *>F MILKING PLANT AND CONTRACTION OF DEBTS The attention of Mr. P. 11. Harper, S.M., was occupied in the Magistrate's -' Court to-day m dealing wd*h four charges of breaches of the Bankruptcy Act arising out of the .bankruptcy of Galyer, of Manutuke, sharemilker, who "hied his petition towards the end of last year. Galyer was charged that within three years preceding the ailing of a petition of baokruphy he did dispose of other hhan by sale in the ordinary way of trade a milking plant obtained by him on credit from Charles Earl* and -ium paid for; with obtaining credit for ! £IOO from Charles without disclosing that he wag an undischarged, bankrupt; with contracting a debt of £1 15s With the Poverty Bay garage ~ when he coald not have had any reasonable expectation of being able to * pay the same, m Well as offer debts; and that between October 1 and 31 he did contract a debt of £2 lis 9d with Walter Findlay when ho could, have no reasonable or probable "«jc-i peetatioti of being able to pay it.. ,..., Galyer was proceeded against by the Official Assignee, Mr. J. : N. Nahtcr, who was represented by 'the] Cro\tn Prosecutor, Mr. P. W. Nolan, and Mr. L. T. Burnard, with him Mr. A." A. Whitehead, appeared for the accused. The accused, when given his rlected to be dealt with summarily,: and pleaded not guilty to all charges. ' Charles Earlo Stated that in 1928 he was working as a share-milker for Mr. Walter S. Black at Mantttuke, : «sd leftthat employment on May 24, 1928. At l : the time he gave up share-milking hei * had -a milking plant, together with cream cans, all of which were his own property. He arranged with Mr. Black that the plant should be sold to his sue--1 Cesser, Mr. Devery, and a few days i after he had gone Mr. Black gave him a deposit of £2O on the price ol £l2O i to be paid by Mr. Deyery,, the balance was to be paid at the rate of £7 a month. Mr. Devery remained there for only a week, and witness agreed to relieve him of the contract. In Juno, I 19JS8, Mr. Black saw witness and said he had arranged with Galyer to take ' ovlr the plant at the same price and on the] same terms. Mr. Black got witness to sign an undertaking to Galyer as "to th©condition of the plant, and also got . him to sign ah agreement of transfer to ( Galyer and Mrs. 'Galyer. The agreement was in Mr. Black's handwriting. At the time witness signed the agrefe- ;" ment,'Galyer did not sign, hut did so later on. Witness knew iihstt Galyer possession of the plant, which he saw fr'ebuently. He Agreed that the £2O p»» by Mr. Devert should be credited '• to the" transaction l)y Galyer. Witness '■s&ylr Galyer in September, and asked him for payment of his instalment of £7, "bat (Stiver pat him Of!, and said it would he tdl right. Witness Mi gone; to Mr. Black first, but Mr.' Black would ' hot pay him. Witness at regular in-, tervals thereafter asked Galyer for payment, and Galyer always made proni- : ises, hut did not keep them. At none of i these interviews did Galyer tell witness that he was an undischarged hankrnjA. "Mr Black told witness this in September. In November, 1928. witness took pro- .;,'< ceedings against Mr. Black to recover f some bonus moneys, audi it was mentioned then that Galyer was an undischarged bankrupt. In evidence then , Mr. Black and Galyer said the plant had been sold At the; time of these proceedings Galyer told witness hi coni versation that'Mr. Black had so tied him up that he was compelled to sell the plant to Mr. Black for £BO. Prom beginning to end witness had re ceived no money beyond the £2O deposit. Mr. Barnard: The evidence of what Mr. Black said is objected to, as not being evident« against the 'defendant. Actually, Earle has always contended that Mr. Black was his agent, i" Mr. Whitehead "pointed out that the Court was dealing with the first two Charges, arid he submitted that that of obtaining £IOO credit, should he djs ' missed at -©we, witfcoat calling upon the defendant. Mr. Earlo had said definitely under cross-exaini'mtion that in late September the plant did not ! belong to him but to Mr. Devery. The charge said the plant was sold tc Galyer on June 1, but there was a , frank admission by the witness Earle that ho purposed to hire the plant to Galyer in September. Even iif the . date of the charge were amended to " - September or later, it "still must fail, - lor it had been shown then that Mr.; Earle knew Galyer was an undischarged bankrupt. Dealing with the charge ©f d**P oS_ i Jag of the plant, Mr. Whitehead said i the Crown had to prove that the sale was made, and that it was not made ■ in* the ordinary course of business, ' leaving to the defence the right of ' pro%ing an absence of fraud. ,It would be submitted that the plant was attached to the "freehold of Mr. ; Black, a third party, and that being attached to the freehold there were certain rights which would accrue to ] the owner of the freehold. (Proceeding,) ■