SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 288, 2 November 1934, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

. TRUSTEESHIP MATTERS. Before His Honour Mr Justice Blair in the Supreme Court, yesterday, 25 beneficiaries in the estate of the late Francis Bassett, formerly of AVeber, took action asking for the removal of Francis John Bassett, Alexander Louis Stewart, and Clifford Harris Thompson from the position of trustees in the estate. Plaintiffs requested also that another trustee or trustees should be appointed and.that the property and assets of the trust estate should be ordered to be vested in the new trustee or trustees. The plaintiffs prayed that Francis John Bassett, Alexander Louis Stewart, and Clifford Harris Thompson be ordered to refund to the estate or to indemnify the estate for so much money as might be found by the Court to be owing for payments made out of the said trust, together with interest. Plaintiffs also asked that the defendants, Francis John Bassett, Alexander Louis Stewart and Clifford Harris Thompson, should be called upon, to pay the costs of the action. Mr H. R. Cooper and Mr P. W. Dorrington appeared for plaintiffs, Mr T. H. G. Lloyd for the defendant Stewart, and Mr A. M. Ongley for the defendants Bassett and Thompson. Plaintiffs are as follow: —Alice Elizabeth Bassett (Palmerston North), Evan Halsted Morgan (Wimbledon), Robert Frank Stephenson (Te Reliunga), Herbert Skipp Stephenson (ltaumati), Charles Eamund Stephenson (Bulls), Edmund Francis Bassett (Te Rehunga), William Bassett (Dannevirke), Martha Bell (Te- Kuiti), William Woods (Auckland), Sarah Magnolia Foster (Waiuku), George Megginson Howard Bell and Inga Octavia Bell (Te Kuiti), Emma Jane Just, Nyleptha Pearl Just, Francis "William Max Just, Ivy Veronica Just (all of Petone), George Bassett Stephenson (Miramar), Richard John Stephenson (Hastings), William Martin Stephenson (Petone), Marjory Grace Emily Larsen (North Auckland), Sarah Stephenson (Hastings), Septimus Edward Stephenson (Waipukurau), James Clarence Bassett (Dannevirke). Defendants are Francis John Bassett (Weber), Alexander Louis Stewart (Ti Tree Point), Clifford Harris Thompson (Dannevirke) and Sarah Bassett (Palmerston North).

It was explained by counsel for Messrs Bassett and Thompson that Sarah Bassett had to be cited in the case as she was the widow of deceased. Because she could be joined as a plaintiff only upon her consent, and would not agree to be so joined, she was cited as a defendant. Her relationship to the other parties is that she is the widow of deceased and mother of Francis John Bassett, one of the defendants.

In the course of a long statement of claim, it was alleged that a statement of accounts taken by Norman Webby, of Dannevirke, showed that payments to Francis John Bassett by way of private debts and obligations amounted 1 to £1794 los 2d, which were a breach of the will. It was also alleged that payments of £628 14s 6d had been made to Clifford Harris Thompson, they being in breach of the will. It was alleged, too, that £1406 Os 6d had been paid, when not authorised, to Sarah Bassett; that capital payments ! amounting to £I9BO lis 6d, made to i the farm at Weber, and £378 19s 7d, j upon a residential property at Pal- j mer6ton North, were unauthorised by | the will. It was alleged that the ! sum of £312, with a £9O annual, stores allowance, made to Francis John Bas-j sett; as manager of the farm, was ex-J cessively great and it was also alleged that Francis John Bassett executed in favour of Clifford Harris Thompson a mortgage affecting his share in the residue of the estate, which mortgage had been assigned under a submortgage, and that sueh first assignment was wrong, while advances made to Francis John Bassett were also | wrong. It was finally alleged that) the books of the farm estate had not been correctly kept as to farming tallies, etc. I

In a counter-claim, Alexander Louis Stewart prayed that if it were proved that he had been technically a party to

a breach of trust, although he acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused, he be relieved from personal liability therefor, and he also asked for his expenses of and incidental to the action. Francis John Bassett and Clifford Harris Thompson also asked that if the payments had been made in bnxui of the trust, which was denied, they should be relieved of personal liability for making such breaches of trust, and they also asked that they should be granted the costs of and incidental to the action.

The whole of the afternoon was- occupied in the hearing of a motion by Mr Ongley for the varying of a report made by an accountant, Norman Webbey, on the keeping of the accounts of the estate.

Clifford Harris Thompson, in business as an accountant at Dannevirke, one of the defendants, gave evidence regarding certain accounts. In 1924, a sum of £238 had been charged to the building account for the farm, the material supplied being for a farm-house and wood shed, he said. Before witness became a trustee in the estate he received £2O a year for keeping the accounts and latterly the same amount was charged. Evidence was also given on the method of entries for interest ordered to be paid out of the estate annually (by an order under the Family Protection Act). Witness explained that he had charged £3 15s for the 75 mile journey to the farm and back in his car. That was less than a taxi would have charged, but Mr Webbey had question the amount, saying sixpence a mile was enough, and a shilling too much. Witness said he had charged grass seed accounts and manure accounts to the eanital account.

Cross-examined by Mr Dorrington witness said that in 1924 there had been certain household stores for the farm bought from or through the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co., Ltd. In February of 1925 witness sold a town property in Dannevirke to Mr F. J. Bassett, a cotrustee, and to secure the purchase money took an assignment of Mr Bassett’s half share in the residue of the estate. From when he had first kept the books of the estate, in 1923, and to 1933, there had been no depreciation written off the buildings or fences. He had never written off depreciation on those items. John Shenvin Butler, accountant, of Hastings, gave evidence that expenses as to breaking in new country were, in his office, charged as capital expenditure. It was part of the cost of buying a farm. Depreciation was generally charged on

houses, implements, furniture, etc., but not on pastures and fences. Norman Webley, accountant, oi Dannevirke, gave evidence that he had been appointed to take the accounts of the estate. He had allocated the £238 differently because the vouchers showed all the sum should not have been charged to the building account. ’**ie Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.