REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY. "No. 5 of -19h1. oul from the Federal Court of Bankruptcy District of the State of New South Wales and the Australian 4 bapital Territory, BETWEEN °° HAROLD ROY WILLIAMS, ae Appellent, - and - | ARNOLD VICTOR RICHARDSON, Official Receiver of the Estate of Theodore .. Charles Trautwein and COMMONWEALTH '| BANK OF AUSTRALIA, wa A Respondenté. oO R DER WEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY FILED 29:AUG 194L eek PAID. oe Pere /o/tr H. F. &. WHITLAM, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY. ON APPEAL from the Federal Court of Bankruptcy District of the State of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. BETWEEN HAROLD ROY WILLIAMS, Appellant, - and - Receiver of the Estate of Theodore Charles Trautwein and COMMONVEALTH BANK QF AUSTRALIA, Respondents. PoxBEFORE THEIR HOWOURS THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE 4 <G STARKB AND WR, JUSTICE WILLIAMS. TUESDAY THE SSVENTH DAY OF AUGUST ONH "THOUSAND M | NIN HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE.. 7 WAEREAS on the lth day of March 1941 the: abovenamed appellant Gd Roy Williams filed in this Court a Notice of Appeal against the whole of the Order of His Honour Judge Lukin made on the 21st day of February 1941 with respect to the delivery up to the above- | named Respondent Arnold Victor Richardson of certain diamonds | AND WHEREAS the sppeal came on to be heard before this Court this day WHEREUPON AND UPON READING the transcript record of the proceedings transmitted to this Court by the Registrar in Benkruptey | of the said Court of Bankruptcy AND UPON HEARING Mr. Berwick of Counsel on behalf of the Appellant and Mr, Weston of King's Counsel \ with whom was Mr. A. M. Cohen of Counsel on behalf of the Respondent | the said Arnold Victor Richardson, and no one appearing on behalf \ of the Respondent Commonwealth Bank of Australia THIS COURT DOTH | ORDER that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed AND THI COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that it be referred to the proper officer of this Court to tax and certify the costs of the said Respondent Arnold Vietor Richardson of the said appeal as between solicitor j i | | | and client and that such costs when so taxed and certified be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent or to his solicitor Harry Frederick Ernest Whitlam, the Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER that in default of payment by 2. the said Appellant of the said costs the said. Arnold Victor Richardson be at liberty to retain such costs out of the bankrupt estate of the abovenamed Theodore Charles Trautwein. District Registrar. | | 7 Williams v Richarson & Anor. Judgment. } Rich 4.0.7 This is an appeal from an order made by the Judge in Banke ruptcy by which he ordered certain diamonds to be delivered by the present appellatt to the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt Traut- wein. The order made by the learned Judge was based on the finding that at all relevant times up to the date of the sequestration order the diamonds were and remained the property of the bankrupt and that upon the making of the sequestration order this property passed from the bankrupt to the Official Receiver . His Honour found that the claim made by the appellant was that the ownership in the diamonds passed from Trautwein to him by reason of a certain sale. He held that this sale was not a genuine one. | The only question with which it is necessary to deal is whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the learned Judge in making this finding. It appears to me that the evidence taken as a whole showed the diamonds were owned by Trautwein at th date of the alleged sale, that is 16th, April 1940, and also justifies tha finding of the learned Judge that a genuine "sale to Willkams never took place, with the result that the ownership in the goods remained in the ba ment of the bankruptcy. . It is therefore unnecessary to deal with the other questions raised/and I express no opinion upon them. The finding to which I have referred 'disposes of the case and these maniy other questiongwould | only arise if that finding was unjustified. { I think the appeal should be dismissed. . e Order. Appeal dismissed with costs. If and in so far as the costs 7% are not paid-by the appellant the Official Receiver may recover his costs out of the assets as between solicitor and client.