TRUST MONEYS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19814, 4 December 1919, Page 7

TRUST MONEYS.

CUST PROPERTY CASE. SHARES UNDER A WILL.

The hearing of the trust moneys case Tas continued in tho Supremo Court to•ay. before his Honor, Mr Justice Herdnan. The plaintiff was James Walter '’rehble, farmer, Halswoll, and Hie decn.da.nt George Booth M’Ronald, farnor, Oust. Mr W. J. Sim, with him, dr R. E. Wanklyn. appeared for daintifl', ami Mr S- 0. Raymond, K.C., vith liinv Mr F. W. Johnston, i'or_tho lefondant.. Tlie plaintiff is the present trustee n the estate of George M 'Donald, la.te »f Crescent Road, Sydenham, who died’ in February 1, 1886, leaving bis widow, tgiU'S M’Donald, and throe sons, feovge Booth M'Ronald (the doienJa.nti. Ralph Ogilvio M'Ronald, carpenter, of Christchurch, and Alexander Boobies M’Ronald, farmer, of Ta.i Tapu, By his will the father left his widow s.s solo executrix and trustee, making her life tenant of his estate, and stipulating that upon her death the properly was to be divided in equal sluircu between the three sons upon attaining the ago of twenty-one years. The plaintiff contended that the executrix had paid away to tho defendant, or his agents, all tho trust nionpys, either fraudulently in breach of trust, or to the defendant as agent for himself in the. administration of the trust- Early in tho proceedings any allegation of fraud against -Mrs M.’Ronald was withdrawn. Tho plaintiff claimed, among other judgment for the sum of ClL’oG 18s 10d, with interest, and certain declarations as to accounts. "Mr UnvTilmifJ -f.liaf. flm nlrnnhiff

had withdrawn, the charge of fraud against the mother, but had proceeded with the charge of fraud against tho defendant. Counsel contended that the facts demonstrated that tho defendant was perfectly innocent of any fraudulent intentHis Honor said that, though there were some remarkable phases, the impression left on his mind, after bearing the defendant's story in the box, was that he was an innocent man. Of course that was subject to what Mr Sim had to say later on. Mr Raymond said that the mother had undoubtedly committed a breach

of trust, whether she had believed that tho property was her own or not. The estate in 11)06 was valued at £1442 7s 6d, and of that sum the, defendant’s sham was £4BO. In addition, the mother had a perfect right to give her son, George Booth, the value of her own lifo interest in the wholo estate. Then at her death the other two! soup would he entitled to a total sum of £'96o. which the defendant hail now offered to them. It was evident that the mother’s agent, J. T, Bell, believed that tho property bev longed to the mother. The position was that Georgo Booth had been the voluntary donee. There was not the slightest evidence that tho property at Oust had been purchased as a joint venture. Mr Raymond proceeded to cite various authorities hearing on certain law points, particularly in support of bis .submission that the plaintiff bad no

interest in tho Oust property in the sense of a title, though he had a right to a charge upon lire property for the trust money actually paid in. The defendant was willing to restore the trust funds, but the .plaintiff also claimed portion of the increments and profits, and it was those claims that wero before the Court. Mr Sim contended that the plaintiff was entitled to tho results of the trading with the trust moneys in the farming operations, even though those pioneys had been mixed with the defendant’s moneys. Georgo Booth M'Donald was, a trustee and was accountable for the fruits gamed since 1900. Mr Raymond said that tho defendant did not admit that ho was a trustee or in the position of a trustee. His Honor said that ho accepted tho statement of Georgo Booth M’Donald that ho believed his mother had had a right to give him tho money towards tho purchase of the farm, and that he | was ignorant of the terras of his j father’s will. The position then was i that plaintiff could claim a charge on the property for tho amount of the trust money expended on tho purchase. Judgment '•would bo for the plaintiff. Plaintiff would bo entitled to a charge on the. property for tho sum of £9Ol Us 6d, and to ■ costs up to the time of tho confession as in an action to recover £IOOO. From tho time of the confession onward defendant would be entitled to costs as in an action to .recover £IOOO. "Witnesses’ expenses and disbursements would bo settled bv the Registrar.