THE £15,000

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 7 April 1922, Page 4

THE £15,000

STATEMENT BY CAWTHKON

TRUSTEES The CawUtron Trustees have issued tile following statement in regard to the £1(3,000: The true position of the Cawthron Trustees in the matter of Mr Cawthron’s ■ conditional gift of £15,000 has been completely ignored in all discussions which have at present appeared in the press. 1. On 19th April, 1910, the Trustees became aware that they had a responsibility in seeing that the conditions attached to the gift of £15,000 to tile Hospital hoard were fulfilled. _ 2. In consequence of this responsibility the Trustees notified the Hospital hoard on 20th August, 1917, that if reasonable haste was not observed it would be necessary to apply for a. refund of the £15,000. 3. The Hospital hoard merely acknowledged the receipt of this letter. 4. In July, 1921, the whole matter was submitted to the Trustees’ solicitors for their opinion, and they au. vised that, owing to non-fulfilment of conditions imposed by Mr Cawthron, the hoard held the sum of £15,000 ni trust for the Trustees and were liable to refund it. They considered,'' however, that the question was so complex and important that some eminent counsel’s opinion should be obtained. 5. Following on this, on *6ih September, 1921, the Trustees’ solicitors, acting under instructions, submitted case for opinion to Sir hassefct Edwards, asking:— a) Whether the Trustees had a right to recover the £15,000, and accumulated interest thereon. (b) Whether it was their legal duty to take action. The reply to both questions, was m the affirmative. 6. The Trustees, understanding that they might be made legally responsible by ‘the Supreme Court if the £15,000 was spent without the conditions of the gift being complied with, decided in self-protection to apply for the return of the money, the Chairman making it clear that this course of action was distasteful to the Trustees, The above being the facts and a heavy personal responsibility lying on the Trustees, it is useless for members of public bodies to abuse the Trustees for the action they arc taking, D m unlikely that any of those bodies wTI indemnify the Trustees of Mr Cawthron’s estate jointly and severally against an action in the Supreme Court, It is unfair .to the Trustees that-such a position should be alloved to continue.