In what circumstances can a debtor be called “manager or foreman or superintendent” of his wife’s farm?

In answer to question 176 the debtor says that he may be called “manager or foreman or superintendent” of his wife’s farm. He is evidently an experienced agriculturist, and according to the principle of In re Kay v. Storry, supra, above referred to, he is in a position to earn money, even if it were to be that he has no interest in the farms of his wife. In, addition to this, he has an interest in a quarter section of land, but does not know whether it is yet registered in his name. In answer to question 235, he says that the bank, which was handling the transaction, assured him that it would be registered (Qs. 235 and 237) in his name. He has deliberately refrained for many months from informing himself as to whether this had been done or not, and I have no doubt the quarter section of land is his. In his examination he refused repeatedly to say how much he had paid for this land, so refusing on the advice of his counsel. I am compelled to infer that it is of far from merely nominal value or he would have been glad to have told what he had paid for it.