LENGTHY LITIGATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 156, 3 July 1937, Page 13

LENGTHY LITIGATION.

THE HUNTER ESTATE CASE. ARGUMENT FOR DEFENCE. (By Telegraph.—rress Association.! WELLINGTON, Friday. The- hearing was continued in the Supreme Court to-day of the case in ; which Lady Hunter seeks the removal of ; Cyril Taul Hunter and Thomas Percy | Hunter from the trusteeship of the estate of her late husband, Sir George i Hunter. Referring to plaintiff's complaint j about the trustees not taking legal advice in 1932 whether they should bring an action to recovcr a gift of £1166 made l>y Sir George Hunter to the Paul Hunter estate. Mr. Weston, for the defence. said although Lady Hunter was an indomitable litigant, the parties at that time woe becoming war weiry. There had ben a lot of litigation, the cost of which had amounted to something like £6000. The trustees, if they ]

had honestly thought there no ground for taking action, would naturally have been hesitant of embarking on any further litigation. Apart altogether from the case, there -was a feeling that the estate had been penalised enough. His Honor: What is to be done today? How can these two gentlemen who aTe personally interested in this matter decide whether this £1166 should be repaid or not ? How call they properly take steps to have that determined wh»it they have, control of all the papers and documents ? Mr. Weston said they could hand over all the documents to Mr. Willis, and lie could take charge of them. Whatever the position, it did not involve their retirement from the trusteeship. He submitted that they had I/Ccn puilty of no misconduct, and Mr. Willis could not go so far as to submit that, the trustees had a personal interest, they should be removed. His Honor said the law provided that, in such a case, the trustees would get no remuneration. With' the interests of an infant involved, the trustees should have taken some opinion, either of counsel or of the Court. The hearing was adjourned.