UNDUE INFLUENCE ALLEGED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 7 October 1924, Page 5

UNDUE INFLUENCE ALLEGED.

IN CONTROL OF ESTATE. CABINET MINISTER INVOLVED. (by TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 6. Allegations of breaches of trust in the administration of a large estate were made in a civil action in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Reed. The case concerned the estate of the late Edward George Wright, of Ashburton. The plaintiffs were Eloi'ence Jenny Morgan, wife of W. A. Morgan, Mt. Somers, and Florence Barbara Morgan and Harry Wright Morgan, infant children of W. A. and F. J. Morgan. The defendants were Douglas George Wright, of Winslow; Harriet Myers Wright,.of Ashburton, widow; and the Hon. W. Nosworthy, of Mesopotamia station, farmer.

Plaintiffs said the defendant Nosworthy married 'Lilian Kate, testator’s daughter, and was under heavy financial obligations to the defendant Douglas Wright for many years. Nosworthy and Wright were jointly interested in pastoral pursuits in co-part-nership and otherwise, and Wright had exercised undue influence and control over Nosworthy in the administration. The defendant Harriet Weight had always been under the influence of Wright, and neither she nor Nosworthy had exercised any proper control or supervision in administration, and in breaches of their trust had permitted Wright to deal with the trust estate as he thought fit to his own pecuniary advantage, and to prejudice the estate. No proper hooks or accounts were kept by defendants, who had neglected to file any accounts of their administration of the estate.

The statement of defence denied that the trustees had been under the influence of D G. Wright. Proper books of accounts had always been kept, and the purchase of estates by Wright were made with the full knowledge and approval of Florence Jenny M. Morgan at prices fixed by competent valuers. Opening for plaintiffs, Mr, Donnelly said the amount involved was very large. The relief claimed by the plaintiffs was that the present trustees and Nosworthy be removed from their office, on the grounds that they had alowed Douglas Wright to commit numerous serious and continuous breaches of trust in administration during the last nineteen years- Relief ivag claimed against defendants in respect of acts .and omissions made for the benefit of _ Douglas Wright, who retired from his .trusteeship in 1907, but plaintiffs contended that liis retirement was not genuine, because both before and after his retirement he was a dominant and active trustee and had controlled, managed, and invested trust assets right to the present time. It was claimed that this retirement was merely a device to enable Wright to purchase trust property in breach of his duty as a trustee and to enable him to trade in the whole of the trust assets, and that the other defendants were parties to his so doing. Counsel went into Douglas Wright’s dealing with the estate, and contended that his whole object, instead of being for the good of the whole estate, was foi; his own good.. It wa s submitted that D. G. Wright and other trustees selected time, terms and price to suit D. G. Wright, and that there were grave irregularities. The time selected for the sale was during the worst drought in the Ashburton district for twenty years. One of the valuers for the trustees was also a valuer for the A.M.P. Society, who held a. mortgage over the property. The Government valuation of the land was £5600 more than the valuation of the trustees’ valuers.

Speaking of the part the Hon. W. Nosworthy had played as a trustee, Mr. Donnelly said that in recent years Mr. Nosworthy had heen so actively engaged in political duties that he had not dealt with the estate. Douglas Wright and Nosworthy were engaged in a large business together, he submitted, and this was borne out by the fact that in two big transactions Nosworthy was guaranteed by Wright. P. N. Quartermain, a public accountant and guardian .of the infant plaintiffs. said Douglas Wright bought the Surrey Hills property at £3 more than the valuation of the trustees’ valuers of £56,300 11s. The Government valuation was £5562 9s in excess of this. There were discrepancies according to the books with regard to the sheep, crops, implements and furniture. In 1908 Douglas Wright bought Windermere and then owned practically the whole estate. A sub-trust was then established.

The hearing will be continued tomorrow.