COURT OF APPEAL

Evening Star, Issue 21147, 6 July 1932, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL

FURTHER LITIGATION IN HUNTER WILL CASE [Pea United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, July 5. Further litigation arising out ot the testamentary dispositions of Sir George Hunter occupied the attention of the Court of Appeal to-day. The appellant is Cyril Paul Hunter, of Akitio, sheep farmer, and the respondents arc Lady Edith May Hunter and her daughter Elizabeth. In October last the Court of Appeal, upholding the judgment of Mr Justice Reed, pronounced in favour of the will of Sir George dated August 1, 1924, and the codicil thereto and against the will of November 1(3, 1929, and its codicils. On November 16, 1931. an application was filed by Cyril Paul Hunter, the surviving executor of the will of August, 1924, for probate of that will and its codicil. The appointment of Hunter was contested by Lady Hunter, who desired the appointment of the Public Trustee in his place. Argument was heard before the Chief Justice (Sir M. Myers), and on March 31 judgment was delivered passing over Cyril Hunter and appointing the Public Trustee.' His Honour held that in the special circumstances arising from the previous litigation and the connection existing between Cyril Hunter and his solicitor (Mr Dunn) Huutfir was not a “ competent person to manage the estate within the meaning of the Court of Probate Act (England). His Honour also held that from tlie point of view of the required financial arrangements the appointment of the Public Trustee would be more in the interests of the estate. From that order Cyril Hunter is now appealing. Counsel for Elizabeth Hunter, daughter of the testator, stated that lie opposed the motion for the appointment of Cyril Hunter as executor in the court below because he feared then, and still feared, that if probate were granted to Cyril Hunter there would be endless trouble between him and Lady Hunter on account of the acute hostility which existed between them. The child would thus grow up in an atmosphere of hostility /towards Cyril Hunter, and that would lead to further trouble in later years. Counsel intimated that as he did not wish to put the estate to further expense he would withdraw from the argument, and leave it to counsel for Lady Hunter to resist the appeal. Counsel for Cyril Hunter sand that at the date of the death of the testator the estate was valued at about £200,000. The stations, however, were not now paying, and the value of the estate had decreased considerably. Sir George had had the greatest confidence in Cyril Hunter, and in the latter’s capacity as a sheep farmer and as to his integrity there could be no doubt. As Cyril Hunter was willing and competent to act as executor the court below had no jurisdiction to make an order passing him over. ' The court adjourned until to-morrow. WRIT OF PROHIBITION SOUGHT Argument was resumed in the case of the New Zealand Sheep Farmers' Agency v. Mosley and Hill. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the company waived or abandoned its right to apply for a writ of prohibition by neglecting to apply for an adjournment after it had been added as a defendant. The company acquiesced in the action of the magistrate in deciding to hear no further evidence in the mistaken belief that judgment would ho delivered in its favour. When six iveeks later judgment was given against it the company acknowledged the fact that it already had had the opportunity of being heard by applying for a rehearing. If the solicitor for the company desired to call evidence the application for a writ of prohibition should have been made before the date of the judgment, or notice of intention to appeal served immediately after the decision had been given. Instead of this being done the company applied for a- rehearing, and allowed four months to elapse before bringing -an action for a writ of prohibition. The sum total of its acts showed that it acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the lower court, and a writ of prohibition should not bo allowed. The court reserved its decision.