ADMINISTRATING A WILL.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 132, 5 June 1923, Page 3

ADMINISTRATING A WILL.

A BENEFICIARY'S CLAIM. The administration of a will waa a matter on which Mr. Juatice Stringer was called upon to adjudicate at the Supreme Court this morning. The action was brought by Mrs. Mary Eliza-beth Jones, administratrix to John Thomas Crow (deceased), formerly of Waitara, eottler, who wae a beneficiary in the esta,te of Thomas Skinner Crow (deceased). The action was one alleging certain breaches of trust by trustees (William Grow and Elizabeth Mary Jacob). the defendants in the 'action. Mr. Sellar appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Beckerleg for the defendant trustee?. The action alleged a variety of breaches of trust, the principal being (1) that trustees purchased the trust pro- | perty, or ijart of it, at a profit; (2) i that trustees failed to render accounts to beneficiaries; (3) that trustees failed to pay over moneys duo to beneficiaries; (4) that trustees had been guilty of unreasonable delay in the administration of the estate of T. B. Crow (deceased). One of the grounds of the defence was that the defendants were entitled to divide, appropriate and allot the residuary estate to and amongst the beneficiaries in such manner as they thought proper. The defendants also pleaded that they were requested by various of the beneficiaries to dispose of the residuary estate, and long endeavours were made to this end, but even although the properties were offered by public auction no purchasers be obtained, and at the request of certain of the beneficiaries Mr. William Crow consented to purchase certain of the residuary estate accounting for the same in cash. The estate of J. T. Crow represented by the plaintiff, was not entitled to any proceeds of the estate of T. S. Crow untli the death of the life tenant, which occurred in 191 G. Sales of various properties took place in 1917, 1919, and 1920 and requests ! were made to the plaintiff to obtain administration so as to facilitate the winding up of the estate. Mr. Beckerleg j raised the preliminary point that the defendants if they were guilty of breaches of trust (which was denied) were entitled to indemnity from certain of the beneficiaries in the estate represented by the plaintiff, and that so as to enable the Court to make an order affecting the shares of such consenting beneficiaries these should be joined in. i His Honor held that if the defendants wore entitled to indemnity, it would be necessary for the beneficiaries against whom they claimed to be heard in the present proceedings, and further he suggested that accounts Ehould be taken , within fourteen days.