Palmerston District Court,

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 195, 16 February 1895, Page 2

Palmerston District Court,

A special sitting of the above was held yesterday, at Palmerston when the judgr ments reserved by District Judge Martin in reference to Franklin Browne Bros.' | application for discharge, and William Franklin-Browne's application to reverse the decision ot the D O.A. rejecting proof , of debt, were delivered by Mr Matravers, [ acting Judge. , In reference to Franklin-Brown Bros.' i application for discharge, the Judge de» p cided that they should, out of their earn , ings, pay their creditors something. It ' was undesirable that these young men ( men should have their discharge clogged with conditions, as the estate would pay 3d in the £, and their application would be adjourned to the sitting of the Court after the next to enable them to pay over to the D.O.A. such a sum as would bring the dividend in the estate up to 5s in i the £. In reference to William FranklinBrowne's application to reverse the D.O.A.'s decision rejecting proof of debt in Frankiin-Browoe Bros' estate, his Honor said the facts were that the bankrupts, who are sons of the applicant, were , promised by their father that when they had learnt their trade as bakers, he would , give them a start. Accordingly when the sons had qualified as tradesmen he bought a section of land in their names and , erected at his expense buildings upon it. | The sons carried on business for some time in the buildings erected by the father but ultimately became bankrupt. No charge had been given by the sons in favor of their father for the moneys be had expended in purchasing the land and erect- • ihg the buildings, nor had any acknowledgment been given by them to him for these moneys. These sums were not entered in their books of account as a liability, and when the father assisted the . sons to prepare their list of assets and f liabilities no mention was made of the i money now claimed by the father neither did he lodge any proof of debt until after . the first meeting of creditors. In his (Judge MartiD's) opinion, the application > must fail, There was abundant authority ! for the following general principles of law, j yiz., " That where a father purchases in [ the name of his child, the presumption is that a provision for the child was intended" , and " if a conveyance be taken in the name of a child it will be presumed an advancement and the child will be entitled beneficially." He was satisfied that the ! father when he spent his money did so as , an act of bounty tc the sons, and he could ' not now alter the character of his act and convert it into a debt. The motion was dismissed with £2 2s costs. Mr Fitzherbert received judgment on behalf of applicants in both cases. — Standard.