Resident Magistrate’s Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 157, 13 February 1869, Page 5

Resident Magistrate’s Court.

BLENHEIM, MONDAY, FEB. Bth, 18G9. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] RAYNER V. BERGIN. A claim of £5 9s, for goods sold. Mr. Nelson appeared for plaintiff; defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, with £2 4s. costs. LITCHFIELD V. ROBINSON BROS. This was an interpleader summons’ whereby plaintiff, as trustee for Mrs’ Reeves, claimed as her property the horses seized under execution by defendant’s orders.

Mr. Pitt appeared for plaintiff, and put in a bill of sale or assignment of certain property to Mrs. Reeves by her husband. Mr. Nelson, for defendants, would admit the filing but not the instrument, which he contended was a fraudulent one.

Mr. Pitt said certain goods were taken in execution by order of Robinson Bros., including 4 horses, which were among other things entered in the deed alluded to, for a debt which he had not contracted, but which the Jaw held him liable for. The trust deed conveyed such things to Mr. Litchfield from Reeves in trust for his wife, and he should prove that when made Reeves was in solvent circumstances.

In reply to the Bench, Mr. Nelson said the defence was fraud, insolvency, and bad consideration.

Edward .Reeves, farmer, of Spring Creek, deposed that on 20th November last he assigned all his goods to Mr. Litchfield in trust, and the signature attached was his; the horses seized were included. At that time he was in solvent circumstances, and owed no debts. Had not then received the summons in this case, nor for long afterwards.

By Mr. Nelson : Could have paid all I owed; had no creditors; was not in debt at the time. Do not recollect Mr. Robinson asking me for the money in this action. They asked me who was to pay it. It was since the action was brought; you know 1 paid Stenhouse; was never asked for money to pay Silvius; did not receive a letter from you dated Nov. 16; did not go to the Post office; have no business to go there for; have not been there for about 2 years ; could not tell to 3 months, might have bean more. The deed was signed before I got judgment againt Murphy. Was not aware that other monies were due in the same way as Stenhouses. Judgment was obtained against me by both Silvius and Earll since the deed was made. My object in making the deed was not to protect my property against further judgments in connection with the Breach Committee. I thought of doing it years before; you had bettei ask my wife herself; 1 told her years ago I would make her master or mistress of the place. Told her about 2 years ago; cannot tell whether I spoke to her again on the subject before the. Breach Committee was formed, but saw Litchfield about it immediately before the deed was made; did not tell him there were other debts owing by the Committee; neither Robinson, Silvius, or Earll asked me for their debts before it was made. By Mr. Pitt: Had plenty to spare beyond paying all private debts. Robinson’s debt was against the Committee. Have not filed any declaration ol insolvency. Mr. Nelson wished to ask what witness had left after making the deed. In reply witness said he had nothing at all. James T. Robinson, (of Robinson Bros., ironmongers, Blenheim), deposed that he asked last witness, on the day judgment was given in Stenhouse’s case, for the monev due to him. He had asked him several times prior to 23rd November. His reply was that they should get no more, out of him, as lie had or should make over all he had to his wife. He told them so on more than one occasion, and his wife came in one day and said the same thing. Did not tell him who he was going to make his trustee ; but Mr, Litchfield told him the other day that he only did it to protect him, saying he thought it very wrong to force him to pay them ; he thought he had no right to pay them. Saw Mrs. Reeves in their shop one day, who said their property was all made over to her, to protect the goods against the Breach Committee. They had made no secret of it. By Mr. Pitt * Believe I spoke to him prior to Stenhouse’s case being brought, but did on that day. 'Finding he was taking steps to defraud bis creditors, we' brought the action; we sued all of them in their private capacity. The chairman of the committee ordered the goods. Frederick J. Litchfield deposed that some time ago Reeves spoke to him about settling his property on his wife, but did

not'give any reason for so doing. The conversation was not renewed until lately. Recollected the unfortunate Breach affair, which fell on one. Am not aware that one man had recovered half from Murphy. e spoke to me before Stenhouse’s affair about doing it. Think it w'as prior to any claim being made upon him, and even before the works were commenced. Remembered that it was decided that he was responsible for that debt. It was an understanding that he was making over his property to protect him against these debts, which witness considered unjust. Believed it was made to protect him from these debts.

By Mr. Pitt: Did not tell Mr. Robinson I was sorry I was trustee, but went to try to get the affair settled ; have known Reeves 10 years, and know all his affairs ; consider he was worth £6OO or £7OO last November; he is perfectly solvent, and was then.

Henry Silvius deposed that he recovered judgment against Reeves and others. Asked Reeves as soon as judgment was given in Stenhouse s case, and instructed Mr. Nelson to sue him. He said he would not pav me, and said I could summons him if I liked.

Mr. Nelson put in a copy of a letter dated 10th November, demanding the debt. Mr. Nelson, addressing the Court, said great stress had been made by Mr. Pitt that Reeves was solvent; while that person denied that he had even been asked for the money due to them either by Silvius or Robinson, which was directly refuted by both persons, whose evidence was a flat contradiction of that given by Reeves, who also states that the deed was not made to protect his property against the result of these actions; but* this was disproved by Mr. Litchfield, who stated that he knew from Reeves himself that such was the intention. Pie did not wish to cast any slur on Reeves as not being solvent, but if by this act he delayed his creditors, he came within the 27th of Elizabeth. Ihe learned gentleman then quoted from Smith’s Leading Cases. Mr. Pitt replied that the onus of proof of insolvency lay with the other side. Reeves did not believe he owed these sums. The 27th Elizabeth did not contemplate other than a man’s private debts. The other side had not shown that there was any fraud, nor was any objection made to the deed, which contained not only a valuable consideration of “natural love and affection,” but named a money payment. Mr. Nelson : Of ten shillings. The Court deferred judgment in this case until 3 p.m. On re-assembling, the Resident Magistrate said that after reading a number of authorities, and a due consideration of the case, it appeared to him that a grantee or grantor may make a deed assigning his property to another, but the question of the amount of his liability may remain. Reeves appears to have been perfectly aware of his liabilities before the deed was made, and it was positively stated in evidence that the deed was made in order to evade the payment of these monies. The law therefore applied closely. The Court would therefore hold that the deed was not good. Judgment for defendants, with £3 Is. costs. LITCHFIELD V. SILVIUS. This case was a counterpart of the last, and judgment was given by consent for defendant, with £1 13s. costs.