A VOIDED TRUST.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 68, 20 March 1919, Page 7

A VOIDED TRUST.

NAPIER WHX CASE. CASE iFOR THE DEFENCE. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) NAPEER, this day. In the case of Amelia Charlotte Macfarlane, of 'Napier against John Vigor Brown, merchant, and Francis Logan, solicitor, of (Napier, joint executors and trustees of the will of the late Edward W. Knowles, briefly referred to in yesterday's telegram, plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the defendants had committed wilful default in the sale of a freehold property to the "Daily Telegraph" Company, Ltd., in Tennyson Street, of which the plaintiff was not aware, and which was valued at £8,855, and sold at £7,000, without competition; in the sale of land known as the new post office site, without public competition, and at less than value; in not paying any income to the plaintiff,and retaining an income in their hands, or investing the same in their own names. The plaintiff therefore asked that an account may be taken of the real and personal estate of the testatrix, Diana Eden Knowles, and that the estate be administered under the decree of the Court.

The defendants stated that all the business was done on strictly business lines, and that tlie sale of land to the "Daily Telegraph" Company was a prudent one. The defendants denied that they were under any legal, equitable, or other obligation to consult the plaintiff or her solicitors as to the propriety or the expediency of selling the Tennyson Street or any other property before they actually sold, and they denied that at the time of the sale the defendants had in their hands moneys or liquid investments sufficient to satisfy the death dut'es payable upon the estate of the testator. The defendants denied every allegation of impropriety in administering the estate, and ..said that the proceedings were instituted owing to the caprice of plaintiff, and in order to compel the defendants to resign the executor and trusteeship of the estate of the late Diana Eden Knowles.

Lengthy evidence was given by F. F. Logan, solicitor, rebutting any imputations.

William John Geddis. managing director of the "Daily Telegraph" Companw. said that in 1!)08 Mr. Brett, of Auckland, obtained an option from Mr. Knowles over the "Daily Telegraph" Company. He knew that the property was first offered to his company for £B,SoO. Mr. Brett was communicated with, and thought the figure absurd, in which opinion witness concurred. He made inquiries for another property, perferably in Hastings Street. The executors were then offered £7,000 for their property. If this had been refused he would not have increased it. Mr. Brown had never spoken to him about the acceptance of the offer. He personally was not satisfied with the purchase absolutely, but his co-directors in Auckland were.

Mr. Myers asked that the whole mat ter be removed to the Court of Appeal

His Honor said he would consider the matter, and would take the case to Wellington on March -31. If he thought of moving the matter to the Court of Appeal he would give notice.