Person Page - 872

Newspaper-Articles

• 29 Jun 1893: A REMARKABLE LAW SUIT.
  An action possessing remarkable features was concluded in the Supreme Court, Melbourne, on Thursday before the Chief Justice. The plaintiff was Peter Nettleton, of Abbotsford, wool merchant, and the defendant, Elizabeth Alice Coope, wife of Richard Coope, of Gembrook, wool-scourer. On December 3rd, 1892, Richard Coope executed a conveyance by which he purported, in consideration of natural love and affection, to transfer to his wife allotments of land in Rushall-crescent, Fitzroy, and Walker-street, Northcote, and Mrs Coope became registered under the Transfer of Land Act as proprietor of the land. A few days later—on December 16th—Richard Coope sold the same land to the present plaintiff for the sum of L750. The plaintiff said that the transfer to the wife, not being made for valuable consideration, was fraudulent and against the plaintiff, who was a 'bona-fide' purchaser for value. He sought a declaration to this effect, and an order that the defendant should execute a proper transfer of the land to the plaintiff. For the defence it was alleged that Richard Coope had left his wife and was intend-defendant and her mother threatened to take proceedings against him, and that in consideration of their agreeing not to do so he made the ?ing to leave Victoria and desert her, that the conveyance of this land to his wife, and at the same time gave her some cattle and horses and L100 in cash. The defendant did not admit that the transfer to plaintiff was a real purchase, or that it was made 'bona-fide' and for valuable consideration. During the trial the defence was amended so as to contend that the consideration for the transfer to Mrs Coope was that she should consent to her husband living apart from her, and that the conveyance was therefore not a voluntary one under the Statute 27, Eliz. c. 4.
  The Chief Justice said that according to the avowal of the plaintiff himself he bought this property from Coope simply out of spite, in order to upset the conveyance to Mrs Coope. He seemed to have sided with Mr Coope in the disagreement between him and his wife, and deliberately intended to deprive her of the land. There were other circumstances which assisted to raise suspicion as to the plaintiff's 'bone-fides' in the matter, but the evidence as a whole justified the conclusion that Nettleton was really a 'bona-fide' purchaser for value within the meaning of the statute. Then as to the transfer to Mrs Coope, she would seem to be estopped by the Transfer of Land Statute from setting up a consideration differing in kind to that stated in the transfer itself. By section 89 of the act a proprietor of land or of an interest in land might transfer the same in the form prescribed in the schedule ; and the schedule contained the words "in consideration of the sum of," leaving the blank to be filled up. By a later act (now section 52) it was further provided that where the consideration for a transfer did not consist of money, the words "the sum of" in the schedule should not be used to describe the consideration, but the true consideration should be concisely stated. It was evidently the intention of the Legislature that the true aud real consideration should be declared on the face of the transfer, and that the transferee should not afterwards be allowed to say that this declaration was a mere form, and that the true declaration was some thing different. Apart from this, he considered that there was no evidence to support the plea that Mr Coope had conveyed the land to his wife to avoid a prosecution for desertion. It was true that Mr and Mrs Coope, though from time to time occupying the same house, had not lived as man and wife for about nine years. Mrs
  Coope said the fault was not on her side, but that was not material in this case. The important point was that Mr Coope had all along provided for his wife, and had at no time shown any desire to avoid that responsibility. A good deal had been said about Mrs Coope's attitude towards the woman with whom her husband was living, but she seemed to have acted very reasonably and considerately. Though she her self had been dishonoured, she did not wish to see the woman badly treated, and she asked her husband not to throw the woman aside "like an old rag." The transaction appeared to have been simply an arrangement by Mr Coope to make provision for his wife, and the conveyance of the land was in the nature of a mere gift to her. Again, if the consideration had been that the husband and wife should live apart, it would have been an illegal consideration. On all these grounds, therefore, he found that the conveyance to Mrs Coope was void as against the subsequent purchaser for value, and gave judgment for the plaintiff as prayed, but without costs.—'Argus.' Richard Coope⁶