HUNTER ESTATE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 142, 17 June 1937, Page 10

HUNTER ESTATE

ACTION BY WIDOW

TO REMOVE TRUSTEES

CHARGES DENIED

Gross mismanagement of the estate of the late Sir George Hunter was alleged in the Supreme Court today by his widow, Edith May Hunter, of Wellington, against the trustees of the estate, Cyril Paul Hunter, of Akitio, and Thomas Percy Hunter, o£ Porangahau, both farmers, and nephews of Sir George Hunter. The plaintiff sought their, removal from the trusteeship. They denied her allegations. Mr. Justice Smith is hearing the I case, in which there will be much legal argument and many witnesses, and the hearing is expected to extend over about a fortnight. The case for the plaintiff is being conducted by Mr. J. D. Willis and Mr. |R. R. Scott. For the defendants Mr. C. H. Weston, K.C., and Mr. J. H. Dunn are appearing. The admitted facts were that the late Sir George Hunter died in August, 1930, and that the trusts of his will were largely in favour of his widow, she being entitled to the net Income of the estate until remarriage, when the income would then be reduced to £1500 per annum. The two defendants, as trustees, had taken possession of the assets of the testator, one of the most substantial of which was a sheep station at Porangahau. FOUR CAUSES OF ACTION. For her first cause of action the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had been guilty of gross mismanagement of the sheep station, with the result that the value of the property and the yearly income from it had been seriously diminished and the financial position of the whole estate gravely imperilled. She set out 23 particulars of complaint of the management. For a second cause of action the plaintiff alleged that in March, 1930, the sum of £1166 13s 4d was paid over on behalf of the testator by the firm of Bethune and Hunter, stock and station agents, of Wellington, in their capacity as general agents of the bankers to the testator, to the trustees in the estate of Thomas Paul Hunter, brother, of the testator, and the account of the testator with Bethune and Hunter was debited with this sum. The payment, said the plaintiff, was made without the previous permission or the subsequent ratification of the testator. Alternatively, she claimed that if it were said that permission or ratification were given the testator was at all relevant times mentally incapable of exercising any reasoned uninfluenced judgment in business matters and possessed no testamentary capacity. The defendants, she alleged, had neglected and/or unreasonably or improperly refused to investigate the circumstances of the payment and/or to obtain repayment by the estate of Thomas Paul Hunter and/or to obtain a Court declaration of the position. As a result of such refusal and/or neglect, the estate of the testator and the plain-1 tiff, she alleged, had suffered unreason-] able and unnecessary loss. DIXON STREET PROPERTY. For a third cause of action, the plaintiff said that one of the assets in the estate of the testator was a. freehold property in Dixon Street, Wellington, and that the defendants by themselves or their agents had leased the premises for a definite term at a grossly low rental, resulting in a diminution in the net income of the estate. For a fourth cause of action the plaintiff said that the defendants had employed and continued to employ the firm of Bethune and Hunter as general agents and bankers in connection with their administration of the trusts of the will and had allowed the firm to charge excessive sums as remuneration for their services. Alternatively, she claimed that the terms upon which the firm acted were grossly unfavourable to the estate. A fifth cause of action was abandoned. The plaintiff alleged that by reason of the foregoing the defendants were unfit to act as trustees and she sought the appointment of others in their stead . She asked also for the taking, of accounts in the estate. STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. The defence was generally a denial of the plaintiff's allegations. The defendants admitted the payment of the £1166 13s 4d to the trustees in the estate of Thomas Paul Hunter, but they said it was made by the testator, with his consent and ratification, and that he was capable of conducting business of that nature, and he thoroughly understood and appreciated the act and made payment voluntarily. The defendants admitted they had taken no steps to recover the sum, but said that that was because the amount ' was not legally recoverable. The defendants admitted leasing the Dixon Street property, but denied that the rent was unreasonably low. In answer to the plaintiff's fourth cause of action the defendants denied that they had allowed the firm of Bethune and Hunter to charge excessive remuneration and said that the terms were the same as those adopted by the testator from 1910 to the time of his death. ESTATE'S LOSSES. In his opening address Mr. Willis commented upon the persistence of the defendants in holding office as trustees despite the troublesome litigation of the past and the hostility it had engendered Since the defendants' administration had begun, said Mr. Willis, the accumulated losses to June 30, 1936, were £7514. To the end of June, 1935 the losses totalled £9632, but a slight profit the next year reduced the loss to £7514. The losses themselves were not a ground for asking for the removal of the trustees, but they showed the direction in which the estate was heading. According to the balance-sheets the capital value of the estate had fallen from £124,000 at the testator's death to about £60,000 at present. If the decline continued there would be no Hunter estate in ten or fifteen years, and it would be beyond redemption before that. The widow received £7 13s lOd a week under the Family Protection Act, that amount being debited against her future income, as were also debited the losses already referred to. _ His Honour: Your suggestion is that that is mainly due to mismanage--IBMr' Willis: Yes, because under prudent management, according to expert witnesses, there would not have been such a loss, and in some years the profits made would have been considerably larger. Under .the present high wool prices | a profit must be made this year, added; counsel. At the time of the death of the testator there was about ±.SUUU cash in hand in the estate and the whole of the realty was unmortgaged except for about £10,000 owing as ! unpaid purchase money on the Dixon ! Street property, though a mortgage iwas necessary to meet death duties, which amounted to £43,000 and were paid in 1934. '. The neglected and uncared-for ap- : pearancc of the estate seemed to strike i all the witnesses for the plaintiff, said j