AT LAW AGAIN.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19179, 9 December 1927, Page 11

AT LAW AGAIN.

MORGAN-WRIGHT CASE.

ROBERTS V. B.N.Z. AND OTHERS

Yet another phase of the Wright-Mor-gan case came before his Honour Mr Justice Adams in the Supremo Court yesterdav.

This time Ethel Roberts, wife of Charles Clarendon Roberts, farmer, Ashburton, who was absent in England when the last case was beard, was the plaintiff, and the defendants were the Bank of New Zealand; Harriet Myra Wright, widow, of Windermere; W. Nos.worthy, farmer (also Postmaster-Gen-eral); Florence Jenny Myra Morgan, wife of William Arthur Morgan, farmer, of Mt. Somers; Florence Barbara Morgan, and Harry Wright Morgan, infant children of Florence Morgan, and Lilian Kate Nosworthy, wife of W. Nosworthy. There were eight barristers in the case. Mr J. If. Upham, with him Mr E. W. White, appeared for plaintiff, Sir John Findlav, K.C., with him, Mr A. F. Wright, for the Bank, Mr A. T. Donnelly, with him Mr A. C. Brassington, for Mrs Morgan, and P. X. Quartermain guardian ad litem for her infant children, Mr G. T. Weston for Douglas George Wright, and Mr A. C. Cottrcll for the trustees.

The statement of claim as filed by plaintiff set out the manner in which the trust had bee/i created to adminiscr the estate of the father, Edward George Wright, deceased. In 1024 litigation was started by Florence J. M. Morgan, and her. two children against D. G. Wright, Harriet M. Wright, and William Nosworthy on the grounds that thev had not administered the trust properly and that D. G. Wright had been given advantages as trustee to which he was not entitled. After the judgment of the Court of Appeal,. wheu Harriet Wright and William Nosworthy had undertaken to retire from tho Trust, a deed of compromise Mas arranged between tho bank and defendants, giving the bank security over the Surrey Hills farm for the whole of the present and futuro debt of D. G. Wright, to the bank, amounting to some £48,000. Plaintiff, while in England, received a cable, asking her for power of atotrncy, which she, in ignorance, gave. This was used to execute a deed of confirmation over the deed and com promise which it was claimed, was contrary to plaintiff's ininterests. In 1926 the bank executed in her name, but without her authority, a memorandum of mortgage over Surrey Hills farm. In 1927 the bank sold. Surrey Hill by auction and appropriated the proceeds in liquidation of the debt. She had received no payment from tho trust estate since May, 192.3, though some of the others- had done so.'

•She, therefore, asked for a declaration that she was not bound by the deed of compromise, deed of confirmation or memorandum of mortgage and that the bank holds the proceeds of the sate of Surrey Hillsas trustee, eubjeet only to the debts secured by the mortgage prior to the decision of the Court !of Appeal. Among other things asked for was an enquiry as to the amount of income from the estate to which plaintiff was entitled, and which had not been paid to her. Mr Upham's opening address took up the whole morning, while only two witnesses wtre heard in the afternoon, Maurice James Gresson, barrister, who toolt the case to the Privy Council, and the plaintiff, Ethel Roberts.

Tho latter said that she had never seen the writ issued by the . bank as she was away in England, and had not been familiar with the action, of Morgan and,the trustees. She had-, acted' without full knowledge of the facts and the cable sent had been misleading. She admitted that had it been a case of withholding the power of attorney and ruining the estate, she would have given the power, but she did not consider this was so. She thought she had jeopardised her chances of securing her rightful share in the estate by consenting to the deeds without full knowledge of the facts. Further evidence will be hcr.rd today. ...