THE WRIGHT ESTATE.

Northern Advocate, 10 October 1924, Page 5

THE WRIGHT ESTATE.

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL. j CHRISTCHURCH, October 9. • .At the hearing of the Wright Estate I .case yesterday William Nosworthy in the course of his evidence said that none of the trustees had claimed commission for administration of the estate. Witness and Mrs Wright decided to raise £10,000 because the money was needed for the sub-trust. Under the advice of a solicitor they offered Douglas Wright an option to buy the property. He agreed to do so at a price fixed' by valuers, thereupon retiring from? the trusteeship, as required by the will.

Witness refused to tell the Court whether the trust estate was imperilled by giving a mortgage. He had satislied himself that everything was all right ; and that the trust security was not imperilled. In 19.11 a mortgage of £2000 was raised, Douglas Wright requiring f,lie amount for his own purposes.. Witness considered this quite proper.. No application by Douglas Wrighl to the trustees ihad been refusad. To-day's hearing was devoted to legal argument. Counsel for the defence contended that under the will the option of the estates wa« assignable and the testator did not regard it as a disability t'or ra trustee to purchase. There was only one breach of trust that could be lucked upon as 'important; that was the giving of a (second mortgage. The Judge: "That seems to be t'he •most serious." Counsel contended that unless the •C'oi.irt was forced to a disciplinary point of view the trustees should be allowed to stand. Counsel for tlie plaintiff .submitted that no trustee could buy tiust property except ,if provided for in the will. Counsel commented that in regard to one transaction Nosworthy iv: fused to .uive information which it was vital f«r ihe Court tv> have. —Press Assn.