YACHT MOREWA

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20679, 18 March 1937, Page 11

YACHT MOREWA

CONSTRUCTION AND SALE LITIGATION ARISES By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, March 17. The Appeal Court this afternoon continued the hearing of the appeal of Pacific Exploration Co., Ltd. (in liquidation i and Sterling Investments Company (N.Z.) Ltd. (in liquidation) v. J. w. McArthur. In advancing his argument on behalf of the respondent, Mr R. E. Tripe submitted that the trial Judge had negatived fraud as he was entitled and, in counsel’s contention, bound to do as a matter of law in the circumstances of the case and on the facts. The following facts had been found in favour of the respondent and the Court of Appeal woulu not disturb these findings without very good cause —(1) That on or before December 1, 1933, it was agreed by the Pacific Company and McArthur that he should buy the yacht in consideration of his assuming that company’s liability for its expenditure on it. (2) That on or about December 16, 1933, McArthur, with the full consent of the Pacific Company, registered the yacht in his name as owner. (3) That on some date before February 28, 1934, McArthur, as between the Pacific Company and himself, had assumed the liability of the Pacific Company in connection with the cost of the yacht. (4) That at all material times up to February 28, 1934, McArthur held £60,000 of the Sterling Company’s debentures. (5) That in exchange for the cancellation of these debentures the Sterling Company transferred to McArthur on February 28, 1934, certain assets, including al' the accounts owing to it by the Pacific Company, which accounts included the account for the yacht. As a result of the last transaction the liability of McArthur in respect of the Pacific Company’s debt for the yacht had become discharged. On these facts it was urged that consideration for the transfer to him of the yacht had clearly been given by the respondent. With regard to the weight to be given to the evidence adduced at the trial the following submissions were made— That the evidence given by McArthur in support of his case had not been shaken; that the evidence of two public accountants (R? A. Glen and D. G. Johnston) called by the respondent was entitled to the greatest weight; that McArthur’s evidence was supported by the books of account and records put in at the trial, that his evidence was supported by reasonable probabilities of the case, that his evidence was further supported by the fact as found that the appellant companies actually benefited by the transactions in question. As against the respondent’s case the appellant companies rested their claim on the interpretation made by one of their servants of a single journal entry, such journal entry having been made at a date later than the transactions it purpoted to refer to which had no explanatory narrative and which was consistent with the respondent’s own evidence. Decision v>as reserved.