SALE OF ESTATE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18428, 8 July 1925, Page 6

SALE OF ESTATE.

.—*. — i FAMILY DIFFERENCES. APPEAL COURT HEARING. i (mISS ASSOCIATION- TKLXGJUM.) j "WELLINGTON.. July 7. The Appeal Court, to-day continued l],o hearing of the appeal, Morgan and , others v. Wright and Nosworthy. ; Messrs M. Myers, E.G., A. T. Dou- j nelly and A. C. Brassington appeared j for 'the appellants, and Messrs M. J. ! Gresson, J. H. Unham and T. Evans j for the respondents. ; Commenting on Mr Myers's reference ! to the valuation, tho Chief Justice, Robert Stout,' remarked: You donT suggest the land was undervalued. That point is not raised by you. Mr Myers: It is a matter of no .importance", but I am prepared to suj that tho valuation was lower tb.au tho reaj value of tho laud. It was an absolute departure from the terms of the \vi("l jtUat the trustees appointed ;i mortgagee valuer, and it was not only the trustees who'had a say in the appointment. Tho valuer was employ.-.! as well by the A.M.P. As the- la-.v I now stands in New Zealand, and lorI tunately it is firmly settled, it was a • complete breach ot tri"-t for the- tni.-- ! tecs to have allowed the A.M..P. to 1 have a say in the appointment, whri> tho trustees or.ly wore given power u' appointment. Douglas Wright had ;•> authority t>> retire from the trust '-i ■order that he could do something :'■'' his own benefit, namely, purchase- ti.e property which he cw.ild not when a trustee. As regards Windermere, No;;worthv in his evidence says that, so far as he knows, there was no agreement for tho sale and purchase- of the piv.yci't.y or any other written evidence, and the only person who would Uiyiw anything about the matter was Douglas Wright wl.c. for some reaso.i) or other, was not called. We oro entitled t*> Jin account of the stock and business can"if-d on bv Douglas Wright since ho took over th>! trust. Of enursc he would be allowed interest lor his work as manager,-biit we are entitled t,i his , dealings account with tho stock, which ; was not his property, and belonged to | the trust. j Mr Justice Sim: Tt is going io be a i difficult-, matter to follow the dealings; with-tho stock over the land for 10 years or more. . Mr Myers: That is so, b"t we are entitled to what ran be done in the matter. The agreement states that time shall be the essence of the contract, but up till the present time tho purchase money has not been paid. Nosworthy says in his evidence there was sufficient security, but after 1910 there was absolutely no security at all. Tho only person who was considered by Douglas Wright was Douglas Wright himself, and the only person who was considered by Nosworthy was also Douglas Wright. Mr A. T. Donnelly, who followed for the appellants, said at the time Douglas Wright bought in 1907 he, of all persons, knew the value and possibilities of the property, and he bought under such terms as no outsido purchaser would have obtained, and bought at "such a time as was all in favour of the purchaser, viz., a..time of drought. The Chief Justice: Mr Myers says there "was no slump at the time. Mr Donnelly: That is so, but a dry period is not a slump. The Chief Justice: I thought a dry period caused a slump. Mr Justice MaeGregor: But quite a number of dry countries are Very valuable. Look, for instance, at the United States of America. Mr Donnelly: I bring-this evidence to show that the time chosen was all in favour of Douglas Wright, and not of the trust estate. Douglas Wright bought Windermere and Surrey Hills for £92,000, paying cash to the amount of £1162 10s, terms which no ordinary purchaser would have got. In part-pay-ment he assigned his five-eighth share in the estate, but this was already assigned at this time to Gould, Beaumont and Co. by way of mortgage to secure a greater sum than the balance owing on the purchase. The trustees credited him with cash for this five-eighth share, whereas' at this time the share was worth less than- nothing. In 1910 Gould, Beaumont and Co. were anxious for their money. There is no evidence where this came from to pay them off, but there is no doubt that it was by way of the mortgage to the Bank of New Zealand of Surry Hills by the trustees to secure Douglas Wright's current account. This mortgage was registered in 1911. Mr Gresson (for respondents): In 1907 Douglas Wright was entitled to five-eighths of the trust properties, the rest being vested in his sisters. The whole estate was transferred to Douglas Wright, and therefore the only duty of the trustees was to. see there was sufficient security for the sisters' share. The trustees had sufficient security, namely, Douglas Wright's live-eighth share, subject, however, I admit, to any charges thereon. Tt is clear that the land was sold at an undervalue, but there is no shred of evidence to show that Douglas Wright appointed, the valuers or had any hand in doing so. Also, it was not the valuation of Mr Overton alone that was taken, but the valuation of Messrs Overtoil and Stitt. It is pointed out that Mr Stitt, now deceased, was one of the most competent and respected of AsMburton valuers, and knew the district thoroughly. Even if the valuation was too low. nothing short of collusion or fraud between Douglas Wright and the valuers would be suffi- , cient to cause the Court to set the judgment aside, and neither of the valuers : is able-to give evidence,, one being dead , and the other ill. -Although Nosworthy had not married into the family at the time .of the • valuation, he was a .practical farmer, and knew what was tak- j ing place. Would Nosworthy have nc- ; cepted the valuation if, as it happened, he was on close terms with the family and married to one of the daughters who W33 a beneficiary and interested to the-extent of one-eighth of the estate? | [fere was a transaction, attacked seventeen years after it had taken place. ! gp'vclv the formalities cannot now he stacked, except upon the strongest evidence. In-the man:. >osworthy's evidence is correct. That the other ivirtv is entitled to an account as to tho stock is admitted. Douglas Wright had 'undoubtedly no right to purchase the j same< ;, s it was quite outsido the atitho- j j i-it.V of the trust. ' • i ! 'f h c case-stands -part heard. j