THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19258, 13 March 1928, Page 6

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Adamj.) MORGAN-WRIGHT CASE. A further development in the MorganWright case took place before Mr Justice Adams in the Supremo Court yesterday, when argument on a summons for directions for taking accounts and settling principles to be followed was heard. The plaintiffs were Florence Jenny liyra Morgnn. wife of William Arthur Morgan, of Mount Somers, and Florence Barbara Morgan and Harry Wright Morgan, the infant children of Mr and Mrs Morgan, represented by their guardian ad litem, Percy N. Quartermain. Douglas George Wright, of Windermere, Harriet Myra Wright, of Ashburton, widow, and William Nosworthy were the defendants.

Mrs Morgan and her two children and Mrs Wright and Mr Nosworthy were summoned to show cause why it should not be ordered that Douglas Wright is not a defaulting trustee, and that accounts to be tilled by Douglas Wright should bo based on certain principles. The principles concerning the Surrey Hills estate are that Douglas Wright should be charged for the use of the lands, simple interest on the price at which he in 1907 originally agreed to purchase the estate from the trustees of the late E. G. Wright. Douglas Wright not to be asked fo bring into account any moneys received by him for rent, purchase money, or interest from lessees or defaulting purchasers under him, or for any profits made by him while farming Surrey Hills. In regard to Windermere, an order was asked declaring that Douglas Wright sold that estate to Mrs H. M. Wright in 1909 for the price at which he purchased it from the trustees of E. G. Wright, and that he should be charged interest for the use of that estate, profits made on the sales of any part of it to be treated as the property of Mrs H. M. Wright. It was asked that Douglas Wright he charged with the amount of purchase money of Surrey Hills and Windermere agreed tn be paid by him and no more, and that the price of tho Surrey Hills stock should be fixed at £10,496, less an allowance of 415 sheep for deaths, and the price of the Windermere stock at £4OOO, less £47. It was further asked that Douglas Wright should be given credit for all purchase money, interest, and other moneys paid by him to the trustees, those accounts lo be "taken up to July 6th, 1926. the date of the Privy Council's judgment in tho case. It was maintained that • tho • principles which were asked in the summons were in accordance with that judgment, and provided'a simple, consistent, and equitable method of taking tho accounts. Douglas Wright was represented by Mr G. T. Weston, in support of the summons, and Mr J. IT. Upham and Mr A. C. Cottroll appeared for the trustees, whilo Mr A. T. Donnelly and Mr A. C. Brassington acted for Mrs Morgan and her children.

Mr Weston said that it was difficult, in fixing a basis of valuation, to do substantial justice to nil the parties. His Honour said that he was not clcaras to values to be taken from time to time over, the long period represented in the case. It was not his wish to involve the parties in an expensive enquiry that might prove fruitless. Nor did ho wish to lay down rules that might have the effect of depriving beneficiaries under E. G. Wright's will of a fair return from the increasing values of lands. Mr Donnelly said that during the course of the litigation Douglas Wright arranged to sell one property for £14.000, but the sale was not allowed to go through, and when the property was ultimately sold by the Bank of New Zealand it realised only £BOOO.

Tho case was adjourned to enable counsel to confer as to the basis of the accounts, consequent upon suggestions made by his Honour.

MAGISTERIAL. MONDAY. (Before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Four first offenders for drunkenness were each fined 20s, in default 24 hours' imprisonment, and a statutory first offender was fined 20s, in default 48 hours' imprisonment. TRAFFIC CASES. For leaving cars unattended for longer than the stipulated timo the following were fined: —Ernest BoltOD, 5s and costs; Leslie A.Dougall, 5s and costs; S..W. Bowron,'los, and Frederick Wiley 10s and costs. Vov leaving cars at night without lights, Sydney Bell was fined 5s and costs, and Horace G. Smith 10s and costs. For cycling at night without lights, Irvine Arrow was fined 10s and costs. For driving at a speed dangerous to the public,' the following were fined with costs: —George Marchant, 20s; George W. Huxford £2, Leonard Goldsmith £3, William Taylor £2, J. T. Thomas £2, Guy Haskius £2, H. Edbrooke £2, J. H. Ford £2, E. Roberts £2, A. J. Van Osselaer £2, and T. W. McDonald 10s.

Francis H. Wilson was fined 20s and costs tor driving over an intersection at greater than the stipulated speed. Jack S. Leishman, for driving a motorcycle at a speed dangerous to the public, was fined £3 and costs. On a charge of driving without a light, and on another of failing to stop when directed to do so by a traffic inspector, he was convicted and discharged. His license was cancelled for six months. James H. Brooks was fined £2 and costs for driving at a dangerous speed, and 10s and costs for driving without a motor-driv-er's license. Frederick W. Cochrane was fined 20s and costs, and was convicted and discharged respectively on charges of having no enddorsed certificate and no number on his car. Herbert Hancock (Mr F. \V. Johnston), for permitting a motor-lorry to be used without an endorsed certificate, and without an identification disc affixed, was convicted and ordered to pay costs on both charges. ..,,■■ Walter S. Dick was charged with driving a motor-cvele in a manner dangerous to the public, and also with driving a motor-cycle so that the number plate was not easily distinguishable. On the first charge he was fined 20s and costs, and on the second he was convicted and ordered to pay costs. On a charge of driving a. motor-cyclo without an efficient silencer, Edward Rutledgc was fined 20s and costs. He was convicted and discharged on a charge of driving without a motor-driver's license. Trevor Roland Hill was fined -5s and costs on a charge of driving a motor-cycle without an efficient warning device. Thomas M, Handisides was charged with failing to notify the change of ownership of a motor-car. He wa.s fined 10s and ° A charge of driving past a stationary tramcar, brought against James Oxenbridge, was dismissed. • . ... Leonard Booth, for cycling at night without lights, was fined 10s and costs. On a charge of failing to stop when directed Io do so by a traffic inspector, he was fined 20s and costs. (Before Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M.) MAINTENANCE CASES. Sydney Lloyd Taylor, who did not appear, was charged with disobeying a maintenance order in respect to his wife. Taylor, who was £453 7s 6d in arrears in his payments, was convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, an order being mado that the warrant be suspended so long as he pays 7s 6d off arrears in addition to the amount of the current order. Frederick Thomas Sliarplin, whoso arrears in payments of a maintenance order in respect to his wife amounted to £l2, was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, the warrant to be suspended so long as he pays 2s 6d a week off the arrears, in addition to the amount of the current order. . Joseph E. Bell, for disobedience of a maintenance order, on which he was £ls 16s 6d in arrears, was sentenced to seven days imprisonment with hard labour, the warrant to be suspended so long as he pays 10s per week off the arrears in addition to the amount of the current order. William Henry Coates, for disobedience of a maintenance order, was convicted and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, the warrant to be suspended so lone as he pays 12s 6d per week off the arrears, £l2 10s, in addition to the amount nf the' current order. Charles Arthur Kirk, who was £172 10s in irrears in respect to a maintenance order ! : 'favour of his wife, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provided the amount of the current order is paid-