SOLD HIS BIRTHRIGHT

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1013, 2 July 1930, Page 10

SOLD HIS BIRTHRIGHT

MAN AND MONEYLENDER AT LAW COURT OF APPEAL HEARING * Press Association WELLIXGTOX, Today. The Court of Appeal was engaged I today in hearing the appeal of Thomas j Richardson, of Wellington, a moneyj lender, from the judgment of Mr. .Tusi tic© J-lerdman, delivered in this case in August last year, i The respondent, Thomas Harris, of Murtinborough, a farm labourer, vmd'u* I the will of his father was entitled ! (inter alia) to a life interest in a sum |of £7,250. The respondent’s father, Charles Harris, died in January, 191:?, and probate of his will was granted in the following month. On May 35, 1014. respondent was adjudged bankrupt and the income coming to him from his father's estate was duly paid to the official assignee. In June, 1018, some of the respondent’s creditors expressed dissatisfaction with his position and threatened to sell the life interest in bis father’s estate, but suggested to respondent that he should himself endeavour to arrange a loan on this security. The respondent later proceeded to Wellington and Interviewed the appellant with the purpose of obtaining this loan. The appellant refused to lend money on security, hut offered to purchase it and it was ultimately arranged that Ye should purchase it for £1,750. An assignment of life interest was accordingly executed and the appellant also obtained the benefit of insurance policies on the respondent’s life, amounting to £2,000. In 1925, ten years after this transaction, the respondent issued a writ against the appellant, alleging that the appellant had taken advantage of his pecuniary position and purchased a life interest for gross under value, and asking that the transaction be set aside. At the hearing, All*. Justice Herdman held that the respondent was of weak character and. that his intelligence was not of a high order; that Richardson stood in a position of superiority toward him; and that lie had taken an advantage of the respondent's pecuniary position. Judgment was accordingly given setting the transaction aside and ordering appellant to account for moneys received by him. The appellant now appeals from this judgment.