HUNTER ESTATE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22376, 13 April 1938, Page 16

HUNTER ESTATE

ADDRESS BY COUNSEL FOR TRUSTEES

CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT

mm* uioounoi mwiw.)

WELLINGTON, April 12.

Tliiimlfiy his address to the Court of Appeal in the Hunter case to-day, Mr C. H- Weston. K.C., for the appellants, repeated that the trustees were' not asking for the return of the trusteeship to t&em. It was submitted. it was not too late for them to consent to being removed, end they did so consent, provided no reflection was thereby cast on them and they had their costs out of the estate. . The alleged failure of the trustees to . apply to the Adjustment Court tinder the provisions of the Mortgagors and Lessees Rehabilitation Act of 1936, m relation to the sheep statio/C~was then considered. The contention was made that the arrangement effected with the A.M.P. Society, the mortgagee of the station, was a good one, and •"the trustees had acted prudently in the circumstances.

In view of the negotiations between the trustees and mortgagee, an application to the Mortgage Commission would probably have prejudiced the good relations between them. It was not entirely a matter of conjecture that if :the application had been made to the commission, better results would have been obtained. Rather it appeared that the trustees would not have fared so well if an application went before the commission, for. then the whole question between the estate and the mortgagee would have been open and not merely a question of renewal.

Mr Weston submitted, in dealing with .the claim made by the respondent (Lady Hunter) for the refund of £166 13* 4d against the appellants, that the fiduciary position between the trustees and Laidy -Hunter in respect of this amount bad- arisen by reason of Sir George 'Hunter’s cwn acts. Because a trustee found himself In a position which conflicted with the interests of the beneficiary, it was not necessary to remove the trustee, as the law provided the necessary procedure for bringing other parties into the matter ,for settling the dispute. In the-present case, it had been m effect decided by the executor (Cyril Paul Hunter) that it was not unfair that the above sum should be retained by the legatee* of his lather’s estate, rather than that it should be recovered from them. Thia decision had been made honestly and had been communicated, to the respondent and her legal adviser, so that if she wished to take further action she would be in a oofition to do so. The Court adjourned till to-morrow.