MATHESON PETITION

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 May 1936, Page 7

MATHESON PETITION

PUBLIC TRUSTEE CRITICISED

MR. O’BRIEN’S CHARGES

[SPECIAL TO “STAR.”]

WELLINGTON, May 28

No recommendation was made by the M to Z Public Petitions Committee of the House of Representatives, when reporting to the House, to-day, on the petition of Ruby Matheson, of Greymouth, praying for compensation for the loss of income, owing to the alleged negligence of the Public Trustee.

The report of the Committee was presented by the Chairman (Mr Carr) who said the Committe had been advised that the petitioner had not exhausted her legal remedies, and therefore had no recommendation to make. Regret at the finding of the Committee was expressed by Mr .1. O’Brien who said that although the estate of which petitioner was beneficiary had been practically ruined since it had come under the jurisdiction of the Public Trustee, it was practically impossible for petitioner to bring action. It was admitted by the Public Trustee that for three years prior to his taking the business over it had shown a profit of over £lOOO a year. For the first two years it was under the Public Trustee, it had shown a profit of £933 a year, but in the third year it had made a loss of £52. It was a fellmongery business, and one of the oldest established on the West Coast. In order to make a good case for the Public Trustee, deliberate untruths had been put forward by officers of the Public Trust. There was no answer to the charge that the Public Trustee had allowed the business to go back. It was well known that if an estate went into the hands of the Public Trustee, the person making the will had to sign an indemnity absolving the Public Trustee from any loss.

Mr Lyon, a member of the Committee, said the facts related by Mr O’Brien were substantially correct. The question was whether the loss of the business was caused by inefficient administration or by the fact that the person who previously ran the business started in opposition. ' An opinion had been obtained from the Solicitor-General, who expressed the opinion that petitioner should prosecute the case in a Court of Law. and the Committee felt it better if that action were taken.

Mr Carr s;>d the Committee had every sympathy with the petitioner, and agreed with the justice of her claim. The report was adopted.