DIVISION OF ASSETS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19503, 9 December 1937, Page 20

DIVISION OF ASSETS

DEFUNCT ROWING CLUB ’’REPREHENSIBLE” PLAN JUDGE’S DISAPPROVAL (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, last night. Have members of an athletic club, relying partly on public support for its existence, any right to divide the assets of a 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 a meeting, at which it was agreed to wind up its 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 Henry Ryder and others of Lyttelton, for whom Mr. W. .T. Sim appeared. The liquidators, Albert William Burbery, of’ 'Christchurch, clerk, and Stephen Rosmca Sinclair, of Lyttelton, cabinetmaker, were represented by 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 the 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 of what they propose to do, which is certainly reprehensible and calculated to alienate public sympathy?" asked His Honour at one stage. “I may say that Ryder’s attitude is entirely proper." He said on another occasion: “It is undesirable that, by a stroke of chance, these young men should divide the assets."