HISTORIC CASE HEARD AGAIN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18578, 28 September 1928, Page 10

HISTORIC CASE HEARD AGAIN.

MAY GO ONCE MORE TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

FULL COURT DECIDES AGAINST DOUGLAS WRIGHT. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, September 28. A further phase of the action between Florence J. M. Morgan, Florence B. Morgan, Harry W. - Morgan and Percy Norman Quartermain, plaintiffs, and Douglas G. Wright, Harriet Myra Wright, and the Hon W. Nosworthy, defendants, came before the Full Court to-day. On the Bench were Mr Justice Reed, Mr Justice Ostler, Mr Justice Blair and Mr Justice Smith. Mr Donnelly appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Sargent for D. G. Wright, and Mr Cottrell for the trustees. D. G. Wright, in August last, brought a summons before the Supreme Court, claiming that, in taking of accounts as ordered by the Court in this action, he should be allowed credit for land tax paid by him while in occupation of the trust properties prior to the sale to him of those properties being set aside by the Court.

By order of the Court, this matter was orderde to argued before the Full Court. The principle on which the parties should act in the taking of accounts, and occupational rent payable by D. G. Wright were settled during last session of the Court of Appeal, but Wright now contends that from that rental is to be deducted all land tax paid by him while in occupation. Mr Sargent, in opening for applicant, D. G. Wright, said that the latter could not be regarded both as tenant and landlord. The fixing of the occupational rent placed him in the position of tenant, and as tenant he should not be liable for land tax. Even if it was alleged that Wright had . ever consented to pay land tax as tenant, such agreement would be void under the provisions of the Land Tax Acts. Mr Justice Ostler: On that argument, could he not also claim income tax, mortgage tax and other outgoings?

Mr Sargent: This is the last question which will be raised.

Mr Donnellj-, on behalf of plaintiffs, contended that Mr Sargent’s argurhent was based on the fallacy that Wright was a tenant. The true position was that plaintiffs were entitled to an account of profits, but Wright was unable to render it. As a concession, they agreed to accept, in lieu .of account of profits, an occupation rent based on Government valuations and that was approved by the Judge in tne Court below. If Mr Sargent’s argument prevailed the result might well be that plaintiffs would be in a worse position than if they had never commenced the action. They would have to make Wright refund, instead of. receiving from him payment for his vi?e of the estate. • They had l>een making, .concessions to Wright all along, but they were all one-sided. Mr Sargent did not know, for he was-the last of a long line of solicitors. The speaker had seen this estate reduped from £200,000 to £50,000, and he was doing his best to see that it was not reduced any further.

On behalf of the trustees, Mr Cot- ' trell explained that their position was | simply neutral, and they did not desire to take sides in the matter. The Court was unanimous that the application should be dismissed. The intention of the Court of Appeal was not to allow such deductions from occupation rent, and payment of that rent did not constitute Wright a legal tenant.

Mr Sargent asked leave to appeal to the Privy Council,. but the Court held that the application should be made on motion in a formal manner.