TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1926, Page 12

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.

ALLEGED FRAUDULENT ACT. ACTION BY OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE. CONCLUSION OF HEARING. JUDGE RESERVES DECISION. A conclusion was readied yesterday in the hearing in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth of an action brought by the Deputy Official Assignee against Martha .Knapton to have declared void certain documents relating to the transfer of property by Teddy Knapton to the defendant some little time prior to his bankruptcy. Mr. Justice MacGregor intimated that he would reserve his decision. The proceedings arose out of Knapton’s action in 1922, when he was a dairy farmer in South Taranaki, subsequent to unsuccessful negotiations with a mortgagee (Hutchinson) with the object of having his mortgage reduced. It is alleged by the plaintiff, for whom Mr. C. H. Weston appears, that Knapton transferred his assets to his wife in order to defeat Hutchinson, at whose instance he "was later made bankrupt. Defendant, who is represented by Mr. R. H. Quilliam, maintains that the property was really hers in the first place, and her husband in transferring it to her was liquidating a lawful debt. Most of yesterday was occupied with a searching cross-examination of Knapton by Mr. Weston, during which His Honour made several sharp observations, characterising certain of witness’ actions as fraudulent and certain of his statements as untrue. CROSS- EX A MINATION O PENS. Under cross-examination, when the hearing was continued yesterday morning, Knapton said that lie had heard his wife's evidence, though he did not pay very close attention to what she said. That was her case and not his. He remembered not agreeing with some ■parts of her evidence, but he could not remember' the exact points. Mr. Weston: She said she was afraid if yon got away to England it might be the last she would sec of yon. What do you say to that? Witness: Well, it might have been. What ajiont if the ship had been wrecked. or if I had been killed in London? Mr. Weston: That wasn't the impression she made. She suggested you might not come back. When a wife loses confidence in her husband there is usually some reason for it. Why had she lost confidence in you? Witness: I suppose because I had gone away sometimes without saying much about it. Mr. Weston: Mrs. Knapton said you were not much assistance to her in the farming. You are not very fond of work arc you? Witness: 1 don’t know anybody who is. (Laughter.) Mr. Weston: And you are less fond of it than most of us? Witness: Well, I'm not fond of work. AGREEMENT DRAWN UP., Witness was then questioned as to his statement, during the bankruptcy proceedings, of his indebtedness to his wife when they had a squaring up. He said he could not at the time remember all the figures accurately, as he did not carry them in his head. When he went into" matters with his wife, on July 1 they prepared an agreement which set out everything, but lie could not ‘‘for the life of him’’ say what had become of it. It should have been with the papers. It was drawn up by his solicitor. His Honour: Who is your solicitor? Witness: 'Mr. Crump. Mr. Weston: What date would that be? Witness: I can’t exactly say. His Honour: Did you get a bill of costs from Mr. Crump for drawing up these documents? Witness: Yes. His Honour; Well, that would tell on the face of it when the agreement was drawn. Where is the bill? Witness: I don’t know. It should be with the papers. Mr. Weston: It’s strange your wife didn’t say anything about that agreement. ’ Witness: Not after all the. things you have asked her about. I've got nothing to hide, and you can ask anything you want to know. His Honour: Mr. Weston will attend to that and you need not. worry about it. Mr. Weston: What was in the agreemeat. - Was the interest provided for? Witness: Yes; but it was eut out. I agreed to pay the money to my wife, but no special time was fixed. She seemed satisfied. DOING EXTRAORDINARILY WELL. Continuing, the witness said in his statement to the D.O.A. he had said his wife agreed to let him have tlie money, and he could pay her back when he was able. Mr. Weston: I put it to you that at this time you were doing extraordinarily well. Witness: What do you call extraordinarily well? Mr. Weston: Well, your bank book shows very useful credits, which some people would be glad to have. Some of these were put. to witness, and they ranged from £.700 to £1623 at various periods. ‘ , Mr. Quilliam: That was the time he was contemplating a. trip Home. Mr. Weston: Did you ever offer to pay your wife out of these moneys? Witness: No. I told her I had none. I wanted to go to England and told her I had none to give her. Counsel then questioned tne witness about some small loans made through his solicitor, and Knapton admitted, he had considered, with Messrs Crump and McGarry, forming a. loan company. Mr. Weston: You were making a pretty handsome profit at that time; and you paid cash for everything.

Witness: I didn't owe anybody anything. His Honour: And you think you don’t owe Mr. Hutchinson anything? Witness: Well, I always though:, he had tile security on the property. His Honour: And do you think that still? Witness: Yes. Mr. Weston then questioned witness as to why he did not pay his wife the cash instead of making over all his property to her, and he ’ said he wanted tlie money to carry on his business. INTERVIEW WITH HUTCHINSON. Witness denied having mentioned to Hutchinson that he was going to transfer everything to his wife, though he admitted that within a few days oi his return to Taranaki from Hamilton he signed the documents effecting the transfer. iMr. Weston: Well, you were going to transfer. Did you tell Mrs. Htixehinson. 'Witness: Why should I tell? Mr. Weston: But why shouldn’t you, as it was your Intention to do it? Witness: There arc two sides to every question, and do you think I would tell her a thing like that? Mr. Weston: I think you did. You see, you had used several threats—you advertised a bogus clearing sale, and interviewed Mr Flanagan —why shouldn’t you ■■ use this further threat ? Witness: Well, J didn’t. Further questioned as to the details of the drawing up of tlie documents transferring his effects to his wife, witness said that he would not remember much about it. His solicitor, Mr. Crump of Eltham, would know. His Honour: But Mr. Crump is not here. If he is not called to give evidence we must rely on you. Mr. Quilliam: X must take the responsibility for that, sir. Mr. Crump pointed out that he had not sufficient details on record to be of use. His Honour: I am the judge of that. I should like very much to see Mr. Crump’s books. Mr. Quilliam: The books do not assist much. I have seen them. With regard to a valuation of the farm made soon after Knapton’s return from Hamilton, Mr. Weston suggested that the valuation was a sham one, engineered to further the scheme of witness. Witness: No, it was not. It was a pure one. His Honour: I suggest you should use another adjective. Witness: I paid four guineas for it, anyway. That was not a sham. His Honour pointed out that the valuer, Coplestone, had stated in his evidence that he did not remember ever having been paid for his valuation. CROSS-EX AM [NATION CON CLUD ES. To His Honour, witness stated that he never told Hutchinson that he intended to walk off the farm, and never had . any intention of walking off the farm. His Honour read a letter written by Hutchinson to witness in which it was- indicated that witness, in a previous letter, had said he was going, to walk off. Witness again denied having made such a statement. Alois Zimmerman, who had been engaged to work on the farm of Mrs. Knaptou, was about to tell the court what Knapton had said to him as to the farm belonging to his wife when His Honour interposed to say that lie thought such evidence was inadmissable and if it was admitted it would have no influence on him. Mr. submitted that what Knapton bad said about the wife being the owner of the farm was relevant. His Honour: What! The won! of the chief conspirator about another conspirator! Mr. Quilliam: Very well, Your Honour; I have tried not to bring in any irrelevant matters. The witness then proceeded to state that he entered into a sharemilking agreement with Mrs. Knapton and was head man on the farm. In cross-examination by Mr. Weston, the witness denied having given Knapton any authority to use his name as a possible lessee of Hutchinson’s farm. It was a new thing to him to hear a suggestion that he should lease the place. ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL. In addressing His Honour at the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Quilliam briefly submitted that there was ample evidence to show that the transfer of assets by Knapton to his wife was only in bona fide settlement of a debt owing to her over a number of years, and that Mrs. Kiiapton was quite ignorant of any possible fraudulent intent on the part of her husband. Mr. AVeston submitted to His Honour six propositions: (1) That Hutchinson, although a secured mortgagee, was a creditor in 1922; (2) that Hutchinson had as a matter of fact been defeated by the transaction; (3) if the transaction from the husband, to the wife was voluntary it would settle the whole case in his favour—and the whole of the documentary evidence was in favour of the plaintiff in this respect; (4) the plaintiff had clearly proved fraudulent intention on the part of the donor (Kjiapton); (5) the onus of proof, that there was a bona fide past consideration was on the defendant; (6) there was ample evidence of fraud on tlie part of the grantee (Mrs. Knapton;. After the conclusion of legal argument, His Honour intimated that he would reserve his decision, which he hoped to bs able to deliver before he left New Plymouth on -Saturday morning.