TRAFFICKING IN HONOURS

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1934, Page 7

TRAFFICKING IN HONOURS

QUESTION ABOUT DEAD MAN.

MAUNDY GREGORY’S AFFAIRS.

Alleged trafficking in. honours was mentioned in a London . Court in June, when the affairs of J. Maundy Gregory came before Mr. Justice Clauson, sitting in bankruptcy. • ■ The matter appeared in the . list as “Maundy Gregory ex parte the trustee versus William Tuston Norton, to consider the registrar’s report.” Sir George Jones, who appeared for the trustee, said that the motion was in respect of a report made by Mr. Registrar Warmington with regard to the refusal by Mr. Norton, a witness, to answer questions. Maundy- Gregory had not surrendered to his examination, and the trustee had had no assistance from him.

In February, 1931, Mr. Norton and another man, as executors of a testator who died in July, 1930, brought an action against Maundy Gregory to recover about £30,000 in respect of French bonds and English stock which the testator had entrusted to. Maundy Gregory. The defence by Maundy Gregory was that the bonds were given to him. The action was down for January, 1932, but was settled in the corridor on the terms that Maundy Gregory was to: pay to the plaintiffs £30,206 in three instalments.

“At 'that time,” said counsel, “there is no doubt that Maundy Gregory was hopelessly insolvent, but notwithstanding that he paid the £30,000.” Mr. Tindale Davis, counsel for Mr. Norton: He paid the first £lO,OOO and 1 the guarantors paid the rest. Sir George Jones: The two last instalments were guaranteed by the bank and he has paid the bank a very substantial sum. It z is all the same whether Maundy Gregory or- his bank paid. ■ “Shortly before the compromise certain correspondence was produced which passed between, the testator and Maundy Gregory. The effect of that, in the submission of the trustee, is to show that at the date of the compromise the executors knew that the £30,000 had been deposited in respect of certain contemplated illegal transactions for obtaining an honour for the testator.

“As I apprehend the law, the trustee would be entitled to go behind this compromise if he could show that at the date of it the testator’s trustees knew that they had no cause of action for this £30,000.”

Sir George said th i one of the questions ■which Mr. Norton had refused to answer, on the advice of counsel, was: “When you found t 1 setting out by the testator of his various gifts and the putting down of Viscount Esher’s name as one of his references, you knew len there were honours in contemplation?” Mr. Justice Clauson ordered that the questions should be answered. Mr. Tindale Davis intimated that there would be an appeal.