POWER OF TRUSTEE

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 49, 26 February 1921, Page 6

POWER OF TRUSTEE

BENEFICIARIES CLAIM SHARE OF

PROFITS.

Tho power of'a trustee to dispose of .a property without consultation with the beneficiaries of a testament ■ was tho 'main question at issue in the case of Bertranv Henderson and others v. George Woodroffe and Walter Willia.i Wilsbor (trustees) and Herbert Hugh. Wilsher, in which reserved judgment was given by Mr. Justice Chapman to-day. At tho hearing at Palmerston North Mr. C. P. Skerrett, X.0., with him Mr. Ongley, appeared for the plaintiffs, Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. Hurley, for the trustees, arid Mr. Loujrfman for the defendant H. H. Wilsher. ■ - .

The plaintiffs were the grand-ohildren and beneficiaries under the will of one Job Healey, of Bunnythorpe, farmer, and tho will directed the trustees to soil the property, a farm just outside the Borough of Palmerston North, arid divide the procoeds among the beneficiaries. Healey died in 1907, and the sale was postponed during the life of the testator's wife. On the death of the testator's wife and his daughter in t 1911 and 1912 the trustees decided to sell. The grand.-children were scattered about New Zealand, and no active stops, said the Judge,. appeared to have been taken to inform them what the trustees were doing with the property. Tpe plaintiffs complained of the" lease of the land with a compulsory purchase clause in 1913. The property was leased to the son of tho trustee | Wilsher, who, ■with Woodroffe. dealt with' the advertisyiff of .the property. It remained a matter of speculation whether a' higher price might not have been obtained. Two tenders only wero received. The successful lessee, defendant Hugh Wilshor, agreed to buy tho land for £3378 2s- 6d, rent at £2,per aore.

While the defendant Hugh Vv'iisher was away at the war. the property was resold, the mortipigo for the balance of purchase money being given in the name of the father, the .trustee W. W. Wilsher. The actual profit on the sale was £1986. Selling in 1919 the vendors, said his Hpnour, iprobably reaped the full value of., the enhancement of land values.

His.Honour held that it was impossible to restore the property,.'but the Court had power to compel the trustees to give an account of the profits they had made. His Honour held the plaintiffs had made out their case, "and were entitled to judgment. The balance against the Wilshers was somewhere about. £1500, which the plaintiffs would be well advised to accept. His Honour held that Woodroffe had acted quite disinterestedly, but might have inquried further. Leave was reserved to move that Woodroffe be held'liable for the sum ascertained, and' the costs awarded against, the other defendants, should that become necessary in the interests of the plaintiffs. Costs against the Wilsher's would be on a scale as if £1500 were in dispute. The usual account of the profit that should belong to the trust estate was ordered.