A DISAGREEMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20603, 2 May 1935, Page 9

A DISAGREEMENT.

Trustees Take Quarrel to Court. AN ADJOURNMENT GRANTED. A dispute between the two trustees and executrices of a will was aired in the Supreme Court this morning, before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston. In claim and counter-claim each party alleged that the other was not acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries and was not carrying out the terms of the will, and each asked that the other should be removed from the trusteeship. Plaintiff was Ellen Hill, married woman, of Christchurch (Mr Hunter*, and defendant. Margaret Miller Smith, of New Brighton, married woman (Mr Saunders). Both were trustees and executrices under the will of the late Margaret Murdoch Miller. Statement of Claim. It was set out in the claim that Margaret Murdoch Miller died on September 9, 1932. The plaintiff and defendant, executrices and trustees under the will, had carried out the provisions of the will with the exception of the sale and division of proceeds of a section of land and a cottage at 10, Purdie Street, Christchurch. On May 13 defendant assigned the share and interest to which she was entitled under the will to Leonard Walter Bullan, of Christchurch, land agent, and so had no remaining interest in the land and cottage except as a trustee. The defendant had wrongfully refused to join in selling the land and cottage, had taken up an attitude antagonistic to the plaintiff, and, by reason of the defendant's refusal to join in the sale, it had become impossible for the plaintiff to carry out her duties as trustee along with the defendant. The plaintiff asked that the defendant be removed from her position as a trustee of the estate, that some fit and proper person be appointed in her place, and that the cottage and land be sold by order of the Court. Allegations Denied. The statement of defence alleged that the assignment referred to was by way of mortgage only. The other allegations of the plaintiff were denied. In the last year the defendant had expressed her willingness to the sale of the cottage for £250 in writing, and had before that made endeavours to obtain a price in excess of that, as the Government valuation on the property was £4OO. It was the plaintiff who had taken up the antagonistic attitude, not being desirous of carrying out the terms of the will.

In a counter-claim defendant alleged that plaintiff, instead of facilitating the payment of legacies to the beneficiaries in Scotland, cfclayed payment and asked her solicitor to write to them asking that they should surrender their shares in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff, defendant alleged, removed from the cottage to her own house certain chattels bequeathed to the defendant, and refused to give them up to the defendant. Plaintiff would not account for a sum of £5 8s left in the cottage, and had also wrongfully claimed £35 from the estate. Defendant asked that plaintiff be removed from her position as trustee, and be ordered to hand over the chattels retained by her. The case was adjourned, a date for its final hearing to be fixed by the Registrar. “ Give them a full day,** said his Honor. “so that the matter can be cleared up finally.”