WRIGHT v. MORGAN

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 5 July 1928, Page 5

WRIGHT v. MORGAN

CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT. (By Telegraph —Press Association.? WELLINGTON, July 4 The Appeal Court to-day hoard trie case of Douglas George Wright, Oi Winslow ,a. farmer, v. I lore nee Jenny Myra Morgan, Florence Barbara Morgan, Harrv Myra Wright and Mil ham No? worthy. all of Canterbury. The case involved further litigation arising out of the estate of Edward George Weight, deceased. By decision of the Pnvy Council given in connection with the estate in 1926, it was ordered, inter alia, that the present appellant, who- had ' been one of the; original trustees of trip estate, was not entitled to purchase from the estate those propeities known as Snivel Hills and Windnitme (exclusive of Oliaoman’s block), which he had in fact purchased, and that he was liable to account for the purchase moneys received by him fiom the sales made by him of parts of these estates upon trusts of the will of the testator. Subsequently ail order was made by the Supreme Court that the appelant should file aceounnts of the pumdh'ase mojiev received, or receivable from the .sale of the portions of the two properties, and further accounts setting out the interest payable by him cm moneys owing from time to time to; the trust. Appellant then brought a summons for direction a® to the taking of accounts and for the 'settling of the principles to ho followed in rendering such accounts, and by the decision qt Air .Justice Sim given in April last, it was ordered that appellant was not entiGea to rely on the sale. alleged to have been nutota of \\ ind-ermere to liis- mother; that Ive must account for the. pma-ehast money of all parts theieor wold by him, "whether the sales were completeo by transfer or not-; that he must pay an occupation rent tor those part® of tht? two properties from time to time unsaid, calculated at certain nates of interest upon the values placed from time to time upon such parts by va.ua. tionsi made under the Valuation oi Land Act during the period extending from February i2, 1907, down .to the conclusion of "the occupation. Appellant is now appealing from the directions given by Air Justice Sim on the grounds that the or-c(ec and directions are erroneous, both in fact and in law, and are contrary to the judgment of tiie- Privy Council. For appellant Mr F. Sargent appeared, ana id. respondent Air A. T. Donnelly. In opening for the appellant. Air Sergeant said' he had decided to abandon his appeal solely against the judge’s directions as to the basis on which occupation rent should be calculated. Air. Sargent based liis argument oh two grounds: (1) That the levying of an occupation rent should not .go beyond a period of seven years after the death of the testator, for the testator by the 1 terms of his will cleanly intended tin property to be sold at the latest at the end of that period; (2) that as the testator contemplated that a valuation should be made of the property, and that at. that figure it should be sold to one of hi«, sons, occupation rent should be calculated on that figure and not on the varying Government valuation. Mr Donnelly, in reply, explained to the Court that Wright had. failed to comply with the order of the Unworn,? Court to render accounts, but had filed a summons for directions. Respondents all along had been entitled to a rental calculated on the actual value of the land as varying from time to rime, but feu- the sake of concluding this lengthy litigation had) beau willing to .accept a rental based on Govprment, valuations, and Air Justice Sim, considering this to lie a fair tiling, embodied it in his order. Being entitled to a greater amount, at least they were entitled to this amount. . . The Court reserved its decision.