GEORGE GRANT & CO. v. J. P. SERAPHIM

Judgment:

The Claimant C. B. Seraphim has preferred two claims to property which has been attached by George Grant & Co. the Judgment-creditors in the suit George Grant & Co. v. J. P. Seraphim.

By consent of the parties the hearing of the two claims has been consolidated.

The Claimant is the brother of J. P. Seraphim, the judgment-debtor. The judgment was for £2353. 19. 4d. and costs. The Writ of Summons was filed on the 6th January, 1939, it was served upon J. P. Seraphim on the next day, and on the 11th January, 1939, J. P. Seraphim mortgaged the property which has been attached, and other property, to his brother the Claimant. The question raised is whether the conveyance by the judgment debtor to the Claimant is void under 13 Eliz. c. 5.

The judgment-debtor was under a Deportation Order No. 75 of 1938, having been ordered by the Governor to leave the Colony before the 31st January, 1939, this was subsequently extended by a further order to the 31st March, 1939.

The case for the Claimant is that from time to time he advanced money to his brother for the purpose of carrying on his business that these advances amounted to a considerable sum and that the deed of mortgage is a bona fide document. The case for the judgment-creditor is that the deed of mortgage was a bogus transaction made with intent to defeat, hinder or delay creditors and therefore void under 13 Eliz. c. 5.

The Claimant has produced a book, Exhibit 4, which purports to show the transactions which passed between him and his brother the total of the figures showing that in the 10th January, 1939, his brother owed him £3890. 4. 6d. With regard to this book, with the exception of three items amounting to £377, there is no evidence of the original transactions from which the book was made.

The claim brought by Grant & Co. against the judgment-debtor was for £2413 3. Od. being balance of money owing on account of advances in respect of timber transactions. The case was originally on the undefended list, and although the judgment-debtor in his affidavit for leave to defend stated with regard to the advances he received that he delivered timber value £10,123. 12. 0 d, he admitted during the course of the hearing that he was responsible for the losses incurred from the sale of the timber and judgment was given against him accordingly.

The judgment-debtor's business in Sekondi was carried on by him under the name of "South American Office" and he had a similar business in Accra also carried