CASE AGAINST BROTHERS

Wairarapa Daily Times, 4 September 1936, Page 5

CASE AGAINST BROTHERS

SISTER’S ACTION FAILS.

JUDGMENT WITH COSTS,

Stopping the case before the evidence for the defence was concluded, the Acting-Chief Justice (Sir John Reed), in the Supreme Court at Wellington yesterday, dismissed the application of Mrs Jane Aitken, of Waipawa, for the removal of her brothers, George and John Moore, of Masterton, sheepfarmers, as trustees of a settlement made by her and her husband, Robert Hope Monerieff Aitken, of the station property, and stock thereon, known as “Whenuahou, ” at Waipawa.

During the cross-examination of Mr George Moore, Mr J. Mason asked: Did you consider it necessary at the end of 1934 to set anything aside for mortgage indebtedness? —“I couldn’t see that there was anything to set aside. Be-, fore we could think about paying anything off mortgages we had to settle with the Public Trustee.”

Have yo.u ever found Mrs Aitken to be dishonest over money matters? — “Certainly not. I wouldn’t say she was dishonest at all.”

Did you feel that you were under any obligation to give her information she wanted regarding the estate? — “With regard to finances and the position of the estate, certainly, but when it same to the settlement of mortgages I found that the Aitkens, particularly Mr A ? tken, were entering into dealings with the mortgagees ■ and making it very much more difficult for us.” My friend put it to Mrs Aitken that she had a motor-car? —“Yes.” How much did it cost?—“Twentyfive pounds, and then it was; repainted and done up. The total cost was £47. ’ ’ She has had the car how long? — “About two years.” 1 ‘ My friend was very impressed with the fact that she had a motor-car,” said Mr Mason.

Mr North: No, no. I was just asking what she had. Mr Mason (to witness): You own a car yourself? —“I run a similar car. It serves the purpose and has been a financial success.” (Laughter). To Mr North witness said ho had no desire whatever to cause any worry to embarrassment to his sister. He had tried to do his level best ever since he had been carrying on the trust. He, bore his sister no ill-will.

Judge Intervenes. “I don’t" know whether it is worth continuing,” said his Honour at the conclusion of the cross-examination. “I indicated before the case for the defence started that X thought a case for the removal of the trustees had not been proved. However, X allowed the principal trustee to go into the box to give Mr Mason the opportunity of cross-examining him. The cross-exam-ination has not altered my opinion. The case is becoming a very expensive one, and I cannot see how any other evidence, called for the defence is likely to alter my view at the present time.

“Nothing has been shown to justify me in making an order removing the trustees'.

‘‘ My view, ’ ’ added his Honour, ‘ ‘ is that Mrs Aitken is very fortunate in having two people like these as her trustees, who really don’t hesitate when the financial position of the estate is such that with ordinary trustees there would be no allowance for her at all, to put their hands in their pockets and see the thing through. ... I honestly don’t think Mrs Aitken could get better trustees than she has now. I think if Mrs Aitken says, ‘Well, we have had our fight, the trustees are going to continue, I will let bygones, be bygones and try to work in with them,’ it would be in the best interests of the estate. There is no question about it that these trustees are anxious to do what they can for the benefit of the estate.”

Recalling George Moore to the wit-ness-box, his Honour asked him whether the accounts warranted an allowance to Mrs. Aitken of £SOO a year. “I haven’t looked into it from that point of view,” witness said, “but I think it would be possible to allow her £4OO to £500.” Mr Mason: My client makes this suggestion: Would the trustees consider it fair that she should be paid half the profits, the other half to go toward reduction of the mortgage indebtedness? : ’ His Honour: X.would like to see these people reconciled. There is no reason why they should not be.

After a discussion between counsel it was agil'ed that the parties should meet in conference. When the court resumed it was announced that no arrangement could be come to.

The application of Mrs Aitken was then dismissed, his Honour entering judgment for defendants with costs.