TRUSTEES’ FEES

Evening Star, Issue 17393, 1 July 1920, Page 9

TRUSTEES’ FEES

AX APPLICATION REFUSED. The judgment of Mr Justice Chapman on the application of the Cawthron Trustees, Nelson. for increased remuneration for their services has heen delivered. - The matter came before Die Supreme Court in March last, on a motion on behalf of the trustees that the report of the registrar awarding them the sum of £1.281 for cervices in connection with the estate be reviewed and that the amount of the executors’ commission recommended in such report be increased, on the grounds (1) that the registrar had not given proper weight to the responsibility borne by the executors in carrying out their duties; (2) that lie had not taien to account the dut : es the trustees performed; (3) that the amount recommended by the registrar was inadequate to remunerate them for their pains and trouble. The trustees suggested that they be paid £3,481 15s. In giving jud.ment, Mr Justice Chapman said:—“l have carefully {.erased the very exhaustive report of the registrar and relevant documents and other evidence. The registrar has recommended the payment of commission amounting in all to £1,281 The registrar has based his suggestion on the time spent by the executors —who are also trustees — in administering the estate up to the point required. It is to be noticed that they had ample clerical and legal assistance. The secretarial, accountancy, and audit fees came to £1,027 ,Cs lid. Legal expenses, apart from the costs of litigat’on, appear to cometo £659 7s od. There certainly were some difficult questions to be settled, but they related to the dealings of the testator with trustworthy people, such as could with patience, care, and the assistance of legal advisers, be unravelled. The claim of the executors includes a chum of £1,550 os, being 1 per centum on the collection of £155,025 lying at iixod deposit. The suggested allowance on this head is at the rate of oue-eighiii pier cent. It may be that some allowance should be made for collecting fixed deposits, not on account of the work, but because of some responsibility connected with the process. I am aware, however, that some registrars decline to make any allowance under this head. Taking the whole evidence I am not disposed to alter this proposed allowance which, as the reg strar*poiuts out, is fairiy in accord with the allowance madeo by the Court of Appeal in re MT.ean. Thu amount of the estate was there much irigor, and the amount on fixed deposit much smaller, while the clerical and other expenses incurred were much smaller than here. 1 have further to observe as to the amount of work and responsibility that if the whole of it had been confided to a pract'sing solicitor he would not have considered himself ill-remunerated by lire registrar. For these reasons I confirm the report. The payments specially reported on by the registrar are allowed. The Attorney-General will he allowed £35 for his costs out of the estate.”

The trustees in the estate are the Bishop of Nelson (Right Rev. W. G. IhuUier), Mr C. J. Hariey (ex-Mayor), Mr T. A. 11. Field (ex-M.P.), Mr H. R. Duncan (chair, man of the Harbor Board). Mr 11. Everett (ex-county chairman), and Mr U . Rout.