SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS.

Evening Post, Volume XL, Issue 9, 10 July 1890, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS.

Ykstbbdat. fßofore His Honour the Chiof Jastiae.) HAIFIIIiD Y. TBK PUBLIC TRUSTEE. Sir Bobort Stout, in opening the case for the dofonce, laid that there were six points which ho had to deal with, vir. :— (1) that too - maoh money had beon spent in building ; (2) that the expenditure in plans prepared by Mr. Tringbam in 1876 and 1873 had beon unnecessary ; (3) that part of the hotel had beon orootod on leasehold land ; (4) that the transaction with rogard tothe.€soobelonging to tho son as part of the life insaranoe money, had boon wrong; (5) that the commission charged by tho Public Trust Offioe bad been too great j and (6) that the hotel had been lot too cheaply. The release, ho contended, had been exooutcd in a proper manner ; it waa cot hurriedly done, and tho plaintiff had fnll knowledge of what had taken place in connection with tho estate. No nndae influonco had boon used, and she was warned boforo 'sho oxoonted tho roleaso that she could have no lagal rodross against tbe Pablio Trustee. Tho estate had got the benefit of tho building put up by tho Public Trustao, because if it had not boen ereoted the lioonso would havo been lost. No ovidenoe had boen given to show that the building was not worth tho JBIGGO which had beon expended. It contained 16 or 18 rooms, and was, ho thoaght, ohaap at the money. As to the oharge with reference to Mr. Tdngham's commission, he thought that the Publio Trustee had acted prudently in ordering tho plans. Tho Fublio Trustee wished to make the vacant land reproductive, and it wai ncoossary to obtain plant before he oonld obtain, authority from the Snpromo Court to prooeod iritb tho erection of the buildings. That Miss Hatfield knew porfeotly well that there was a claim tor commission for preparing plnnr, was shown by a letter whioh sho had written for her mother in 1874. The City Council passed a by-law prohibiting tho oreotion of an; buildings in wood, and the Court wonld assnme that there was no wanton expenditure on tho part of the Pablio Trustee in Retting Mr. Tringbam to prepare plans for building tho oottages in briok. He (Sir Robert Stont) wonld be able to show that the Pnblio Trustee was not responsible for the ercotion of the hotel on land belonging to tho Hospital Trustees, as at the time the contract for re-building was let he was not aware that the land belonged to tho Hospital Truit. Mitis Hatfield, in hor ovidenoe, stated that she had known from childhood that the hotel waa enorooching on land whioh did not bolong to tho estate, and she signed tho release knowing of the enoroaohment. As to the point that the son's share of the life insuranoe money had beon improperly dealt with, he oontended that as the son was not of age the Publio Trustee was justified in taking possession of it. The Conrt, he submitted, oould not reverse the deoree by whioh the money had been seonred. Mr. Travera taid that at the time the deoree was made the Court was misled into believing that the money had been spent in tho rebnilding, whereas it had been applied in paying off the mortgage. Sir Robert Stout, continuing, snbmitted that under the oiroumstanoes the Court had been perfootly justified in granting the deoree for the conversion of the money. The Publio Trustee had paid -Mr, Williams 5 per oent for oolleoting tnerentiand also looking after the tenants, and he (Sir Robert) oontondod that there waa authority for the employment of suoh an agent at the remuneration named. The oharge that ihor* had been an exoeisive commission for services anoh as those performed by Mr. Williams, could not therefore be sustained. Aa a further answer he submitted that the various commissions paid . were duly let oat in the aooonnts presented to the plaintiff, and sho signed the release knowing that they had beon paid. The noxt point he would deal with was that the hotel had been lot too cheaply. As to this, thero had been a oonfliot of evidenoo, and tho plaintiff had not proved tho allegations. On the contrary, it had been disproved by Mr. Maginnity's evidence and the admission of other witnesses. that £3 10s a week was a fair rental. The license for the old hotel would_ not be renewed by the Licensing Committee and there was no other oonrso open but to rebuild. Mr. Staples had- admitted that there had beon a decided loss to ownora of hotel property in Wellington, and down in Dunedin he (Sir Bobert) knew that although nominally good rentals, had been obtained, several browing firms had been amuhed. High rents were no criterion of tho valne of hotel properties. In the present ease the Publio Trustee invited tenders for the lease of the hotel, and the highest, amounting to J23 103 a week, wa* aooepted. The Pablio Truttee oould not have done more. He oould not have followed the example of the brewers, and put in a man and advanced JBSOO or JJCOO on his aooount ; but La bad adopted tho only conrso whioh was open to him— -vis , invited pnblio tendon and let the house to the highest bidder. It must also bo reoollootod that at tho oxpiration of tho loase at the end of 1882 Mr. Mftginnity offered £5 a woek, but this was not aoooptod, and the Publio Trustee suooeoded at last in sorewing another 10s a week oat of that gentleman. This lease was for sevon years, and tho faot that only jES a week was offered was oonolusive proof that thero had not been any breach of trust in lotting the home previously on a yearly tenancy at M 10s pet week. He submitted that, taking everything into consideration, the plaintiff had utterly failed to provo her case. The Conrt would have seen that she was a young lady of moro than Average intelligence, and was onte enough in looking after hor own interests. She had had tho advioo of her mother on matters pertaining to hor estate, and had signed tho release without demur. The law wu distinot that a releaso oould not be set aside unless fraud wu shown, and he submitted that tho plaintiff had failed to show »ny fraud on the part of the Pablio Trustee. Mr. Hamerton had beon sued in Ills personal right, and as he had only aotod in his publio oapaoity it was clear that, per* Bonally, ho mnst be dismissed from the suit. His Honour understood that Mr. Travers' contention was that Mr. Hamerton had dealt with the estate beforo the eatate was proporly in the Pnblio Trust Offioe. Sir Bobort Stout said <hat was not so, ns tho estate came into tho Publio Trust Offioe in 1880. Mr. Travers said that the estate was not properly in the Pablio Trust Offloo until after Mr. Hamerton's appointment. Sir Bobert Stont oonolnded by submitting that there conld be no doubt as to the power in this case to appoint the Pablio Trustee as administrator of tho estate. Evidence waa then called, the witnesses examined before the Court adjourned for the day being the Publio Trustee (B. C. Hamerton), 0. H. Treadwell, solicitor, T. G. Maoarthy, brewer, James Ames, City Vainer, juid Charles Tringham, arohiteot. Sir Bobert Stout intimated that he did not intend to oall any furthor avidenoe. This Dat. The case was resumed this morning, when Mr. Travers aommenoed to address the Court on tbo evidence. The learned gentlomon was still speaking when we wont to press. IBT TIMOBAHt.] (.TJNITJCD PBlSfl ASSOCIATION. 1 BtißNHim, This Dat. At the Supremo Court to-day Mark Arnold, for larceny as a bailee of a how, received a sentence of a year under probation, and was ordered to pay jBJS, half the cost of the proseoution. Edelaton, aha* Huddelaton, Ao., an old offender, for horse stealing, was sentenced to fivo years' imprisonment. This opnoluded the Criminal Sessions. '