STUDENTS OF TRUTH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5030, 16 August 1894, Page 3

STUDENTS OF TRUTH.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. 'At tbe Magistrate's Court this morning, Mr Beetham, S.M., gave judgment as follows in the case brought by Mrs Elizabeth M. Id gram against the Trustees of the Students of Truth for interest due on debentures :— "Tim is a case in which the plaintiff, Elizabeth Mary Ingram, claims from the defendants the sum of being the interest due on six debentures held by her. The debentures were issued before the incorporation of the Board now sued, and it ia contended that this Board is not. liable, th*t tbe parties to Bue are the old trustees, and that the trustees should call on the Board to indemnify them. It is further contended that there are no funds in hand to meet thiß liability. There are really two questions at isaue. (1) Is the present incorporated Board liable? (2) Are there funds in hand to meet these liabilities? Broadly, it appears to me, that if the Board accepts the assets it must accept the liabilities, if the Board takes the benefits it muat bear the burdens. Section 7 of the Eeligious, Charitable and Educational Trußts 'Act, 1884, clearly contemplates this. It is as follows: — 'All property, whether real or personal, held by any society, or by the trustees of any such trust shall, immediately upon their incorporation, be deemed to be invested in the Board upon and subject to such trusts, power, contracts, and equities as shall then affect the same.' These debentures are held subject to the following proviso :—' All liability of the trustees with regard to debentures is restricted to the amount of funds in their hands belonging to the Students of Truth.' It is clear and it is admitted that the trustees, prior to the incorporation, have no fundß in hand ; they divested themselves cf all property in favour of the present Board. Their answer to a suit would be, ' We have no funds in hand/ and I do not eee that under these circumstances the plaintiff could obtain a judgment against them, much less force them to call upon the present Board to indemnify them. Ido not think the plaintiff should be forced into any such procedure, I must hold therefore that the present Board is liable— if they have no funds in hand. As regards funds it is contended that the expression means funds readily available, and it is further contended that if the Board had funds deposited for a year or six months, •it would not have funds in hand. In that caße the Board would be able by a judicious—or from the plaintiff's point of view injudicious— manipulation of its fnnds to avoid the payment of all liabilities. I do not think this is arguable. Ib is not denied that the Board has under its immediate control chairs to the value of more than £200— it is stated that it was in consequence of a mistake that these chairs were not leased to Mr Worthington —but at any rate they are available, and, moreover, the Board is in receipt of .£240 a year from Mr Worthington as rent for the Temple ; that is surely available. In a recent case reported in Law Journal 63, Queen's Bench, page 237, Brett v. the Monarch Investment Building Society, it was held 'that the expression available balance in hand included not merely money actually in the hands of the society, but also money which without undue lo3s or delay cculd be realised, as, for instance, money in Consols or any other security capable of being readily realised by the society. I must hold, therefore, that the Board has at any rate eufficieht funds in hand to pay the interest due to tbe plaintiff. There are, no doubt, many intricate points of law involved in these questions, and I |am by no means certain that my con* elusions are correct. The equities are dearly with the plaintiff, and if there is law which will prevent her from recovering the interest on what appears to be the whole of the property which she has, on the advice of her spiritual pastor, invested in this undertaking, it must be sought for in the Superior Court. Of one thing lam sure, that if there is to be any further litigation in the shape of an appeal, which appears to me, under the circumstances to be very advisable, considering the magnitude of the interests involved, the initiative in such appeal should be on the shoulders of the Board, and not on the shoulders of the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff with costs." Mr Bruges, for the defendants, obtained I leave to appeal. Mr Harman, for Mr von Haaat, obtained £2 2s costs and two witnesses' expenses. The total costs in the case amounted to £i 183.