THE WEIGHT ESTATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19086, 3 August 1925, Page 11

THE WEIGHT ESTATE.

COORT ALLOWS APPEAL. DEPARTURE FROM TRUST. MAY GO TO PRIVY COUNCIL. [BY TELEGRAPH.—1 J REBS 'ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, - Saturday. The Appeal Court to-day allowed the appeal Morgan and others v. Wright and Nosworthy, Sir Robert Stout dissenting. Counsel for appellants were Messrs. J.tyers, K.C., Donnelly and Brassington, far for respondents Messrs. Gresson, Upham and Evans. In allowing the appeal with costs on the highest scale, Mr. Justice MacGregor stated that the decision of the Judge in the Court below could not be supported on the law or the facts. Ho was satisfied that tho respondent trustees departed from tho statutory rules relative to the duties of trustees and must abide by the consequences arising in law from their conduct. Appellants had established that the trustees had not carried out the directions of tho testator as (embodied in the will and codicil, and that' as a body they had sold trust property to one of themselves oh terms which they certainly could not legally have g;iven to an outside purchaser or purchasers. Tho Court could only conclude that Douglas Wright, who was present at Court during the trial actively instructing counsel, had no reasonable explanation to offer of his conduct, as he did not venture to go into tho witness box. The Hon. W. Nosworthy's ovidenco was far from convincing. He did not appear anxious to help the Court in arriving at tho (acts in issue. The purchase of Windermere could not stand, ior the retirement of Douglas Wright was a mere formality and not an actual fact. As far as Surry Hills was concerned he held that the right of purchase was not assignable to Douglas Wright. Not Intended by Testator. Mr. Justice Herdman, in coming to a similar opinion, found that tho trust estate was manipulated in such a way as to givo Douglas Wright substantial advantages never contemplated and never intended by the testator. "I have no hesitation in agreeing with the other members of the Court that a declaration should be made that the parlis of Surry Hillu and Windermere 'whiich are not disposed of still form part of the trust estate, and that Douglas Wiright must account to the trust for all the money received by him on account of purchase money for tho parts of the properties sold, and that further he must account for all profits derived by him from the properties since he acquired them, as well as for the profits arising out of the disposition of live and dead stock the property of the trust estate." Mr. Justice Sim heild that the judgment of the Supreme Court should be varied by a declaration that Douglas Wright was not entitled to purchase Surry Hills or Windermere, and was liable to account for all profits made, and that accounts should be taken. The Chief Justice, in dissenting from the judgment, held that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that there had been a delay of 16 years in bringing the action, and that it would be inequitable to Douglas Wright to give up properties or account for profits from resales. On the application of Mr. Evans conditional leave to appeal to the Privy : Council was granted in a security of £SOO. Origin of the Dispute. The case relates to two properties ih the estate of Edward George Wright, who died in-1902, know as Surry Hills and Windermere. The Court below found that the facts of sales and prices paid was well known, to all the beneficiaries, and that no question was ever raised until recently, when litigation between Mrs. Morgan, erne of the appellants, and Mr.. D. G. Wright caused bad feeling. The Court then held that the rigL* of purchase was assignable, and that D. G. Wright was legally entitled to buy both estates, but not the stock on either. The present appeal, was lodged against the whole of Mr. Justice Heed's judgment, except such part as declared (a) "That the defendant, Douglas George Wright was not entitled to purchase stock on Surry Hills and Windermere; (b) thar, tho purchase of the stock of the said estate* had not been condoned by the beneficiaries, nor had they acquiesced in the sale; and (c) excepting such part of the judgment as orders that inquiries should bo made and accounts taken before the registrar and accountant, as to whether the rate <if interest payable between 1908 and 192? by George Wright to the trustees was a proper rate, and (d) whether the securities now held by the trustees ar.e in order, and whether they are good and sufficient securities as required by the Trustee Act, 1908."