NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED.

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 19052, 16 September 1933, Page 3

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED.

WIDOW’S COURT ACTION. ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE. PUBLIC TRUSTEE SUED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) ' WELLINGTON, Friday. An interim judgment was delivered by Mr Justice MacGregor in the Supreme Court to-day in the case ot Mrs Alice Merry, a widow, against the Public Trustee, who,was administrator of the estate of plaintiff's late hu=band over a period of years. In September of last year Mrs Merry alleged that grossly inadequate rents had been obtained from three PlCJperties situated at Brooklyn, Kilbirme and Houghton Bay and claimed damages. The case was referred to Mr E. Page, S.M., as special referee. There was a motion of behalf of Mrs Merry for adoption of the re - eree’s report and judgment for damages alleged on the basis of the report to have been suffered by plaintiff “ by reason of defendant’s unskilful and negligent management and control of the properties." On the other hand, the Public Trustee asked that the report be referred back to the referee to say whether the evidence called beXore him showed any want of diligence on the part of the Publio Trustee. Alternatively, it was claimed that if the report Implied imprudence or want of diligence, the finding was against the evidence and that judgment should be entered for defendant. It was on the question whether the report should be remitted to the referee and on two legal - points, namely, whether an English case should be regarded as an authority in New Zealand and whether the New Zealand rent restriction legislation applied to the property at Brooklyn that His Honour has given decision. His Honour, in the course of his judgment, said it appeared to him that the report of the special referee was not only adequate, but supplied elements necessary to support a uniting of the very negligence alleged by plaintiff and denied by in the pleadings. By his report the referee had answered those questions put him in such a way, said His Honour, as to satisfy him that had defendant acted as a prudent, skilful and diligent trustee he would have procured for plaintiff additional rent to the extent, His Honour understood, , of v ?ver £I3OO. , , ■ In other words, said Ills Honour, the answers given by the referee appeared to him to result in a definite finding of negligence consisting of lack of prudence or diligence in procuring the best rentals reasonably available In respect of three specified properties. The first branch of defend-ant’s-cross motion would be dismissed accordingly. His Honour answered in the affirmative the question whether the New Zealand Rent Restriction Acts applied to plaintiff’s Brooklyn property and held that the English case referred to, namely, Dufty v. Palmer, 'was not an authority binding in this Dominion. The hearing of the remainder of both motions was reserved for further consideration.