APPEAL ALLOWED.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 180, 1 August 1925, Page 10

APPEAL ALLOWED.

WRIGHT ESTATE CASE. SALE OF PROPERTIES. JUDGE REED'S DECISION UPSET. CHIEF JUSTICE DISSENTS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The Appeal Court to-day allowed the appeal Morgan and others v. Wright and Nosworthy, Sir Robert Stout dissenting. Counsel for appellants were Messrs. Myers, K.C., Donnelly and Brassirigton, and for respondents* Messrs. Greeson, Upham and Evans. In allowing the appeal with costs on the highest scale, Mr. Justice MacGregor stated that the decision of- the judge in the Court below could not be supported on the law or the facts. He was satisfied that the respondent trustees departed in this case from the statutory rules relative to the duties of trustees and must abide by the consequences arising in law from their conduct. Appellants had established that the trustees had not carried out the directions of the testator as embodied in the will and codicil, and that as a body they had sold trust property to one of themselves on terms which they certainly could not legally have given to an outside purchaser or purchasers. The Court could only conclude that Douglas Wright, who was present at Court during the trial actively instructing counsel, had no reasonable explanation to offer of his conduct, as he did not venture to go into the witness box.

The Hon. W. Nosworthy's evidence was far from convincing. He did not appear anxious to help the Court in arriving at the facts in issue. The purchase of Windermere could not stand, for the retirement of Douglas Wright was a mere formality and not an actual fact. As far as Surry Hills was concerned he held the right of purchase .was not assignable to Douglas Wright. Mr. Justice Herdman, in coming to a similar opinion, found that the trust •estate was manipulated in such a way as to give - Douglas Wright substantial advantages never contemplated and never intended by the testator. "I have no hesitation in agreeing with the other members of the Court that a declaration should be made that the parts of Surry Hills and Windermere which are not disposed of still form part of the trust estate, and that Douglas Wright must account to the trust for all the money received by him on account of purchase money for the parts of the properties sold, and that further he must account for all profits derived by him from the properties since he acquired them, as well as for the profits arising out of the disposition of live and dead stock the property of the trust estate."

Mr. Justice Sim held that the judgment of the Supreme Court should be varied by a declaration that Douglas Wright was not entitled to purchase Surry Hills or Windermere, and was liable to, account for all profits made, and that accounts should be taken.

The Chief Justice, in dissenting from tbe judgment, held that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that there had been a delay of sixteen years in bringing the action, and that it would be inequitable to Douglas Wright to give up properties or account for profits from re-sales.

Oh the application of Mr. Evans conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council was granted in a security of £500.

The case relates to two properties in the estate of Edward George Wright (who died in 1902) known as Surry Hills and Windermere. The court below found that the facts of sales and prices paid was well known to all th e beneficiaries, and that no question was ever raised until recently, when litigation between Mrs. Morgan (one of the appellants) and Mr. D. G. Wright caused bad feeling. The Court then held that the right of purchase was assignable, and that D. G. Wright was legally entitled to buy both estates, but not "the stock on either.

. The present appeal was lodged against the whole of Mr. Justice Reed's judgment, except siieb part as declared (a) "That the defendant. Douglas George Wright waa not entitled- to purchase stock on Surry Hills and Windermere: '(b) that the purchase of the stock of the said estates had not been condoned by the beneficiaries, nor had they acquiesced in the sale: and (c) excepting such part of the judgment as orders that inquiries should be made and accounts taken, before the Registrar and accountant, as to whether the rate of interest payable between 1908 and 1924 by Douglas George . Wright to the .trustees was a proper rate, and (d) whether the. securities,now held by the •trustees are in order, and whether they are good and sufficient securities.'as required by the Trustee Act, 1908."

Mir. Myers," in opening tbe case for the applicants, said there would be a slight alteration in the case as previously presented. Judge Reed had accepted the Hon. Nosworthv's statement as to the valuation of Windermere, without sup'oorting evidence. They alleged that the trustees had been allowed to purchase the property at the lowest possible valuation at a profit of £50.000.' Although the land and stock of- Windermere and Surry Hills were purchased for £93.184 all the cash actually found by Douglas Wright was the paltry sum of : £800, and the only person considered in the transaction w*a Douglas Wright, whose interest was adverse to the trust estate. .Mr. Myers then proceeded to discuss figures and respective purchases at great length, stating that a total profit that .appeared to be made on both properties was. £51,356 sterling.