VALIDITY OF LAND SALE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 68, 14 December 1920, Page 11

VALIDITY OF LAND SALE

THE POWEKS. OF TRUSTEES. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman dealt in tlie Supremo/ Court yesterday with a case relating to the sale of a parcel of land by the trustees of a will to the son of; one :of tlie trustees, the point bcin? whether the sale was valid. . Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and with him Mr. A. Ongley(of Palmerston North) appeared for tlio. plaintiffs, tlio grandchildren and beneficiarifis, linger the will of Job Healy, who are as followßertram Henderson (To Awamutu), Harold Hen.tlerson - (Waitoino), ' . Ernest Henderson (Levin), Bodorick Henderson (Palmerston .• North),. Mabel Graham (Foxton),' Lorna ■ Pope (Shannon), Vivian Gordon Hender•Gon (Palmerston. North), and,. Jonathan '!.'.SUadfelt .(Pohangina), ,as ■ jssißnee .of Jfc '£: Henderson 7 (Levin). The defendants,, for "whom Sir' John. ITindlay,. K;C., with j : hiiri.'.'Mr. E. 0. Hurley, appeared, were 'George WoodrofFo (Palmerston .North), aaj ■ Walter William'- 'Wilshet (Bunn.ythorpe), and Herbert Hiigih Wilsher (Mr. C.- A. Loughnan), the last-named' being the purchaser referred ; to. ■ It was-stated that-in June, 1913,-the defendants executed an agreement comprising a portion of the trust, to lease land to the defendant H. H. Wilshcr, son' of W. : -~W. Wilslier, for K- years the agreement containing a.compulsory clause 'under which the former had to,purchase the fee simple of. the land for me sum of ,£3378 2s. Gd. For the plaintiffs,-Mr. Skerrett contended'that the transaction was a breach of trust. He contended that theTsale was not a proper one, and that . the price was entirely inadequate. The grant of the lease and tho purchasing •clause-were unreasonable exercise of tho ■powers'of the, trustees undor the provisions of the will.. He suggested that tiho defendant, W. W. Wilsher., had some interest in tho lease and the purchasing clause. It was stated that the total mori--1 CYS received for tho -sale of the land amounted to ,£5354 lGs.. but only tho sum previously mentioned had been accounted for to tho plaintiffs, and it was claimed that the defendants, were accountable for the balance. •. For the defence, it was submitted by Sir John Findlay tihat no action had been .performed by .the defendants that was not consistent' with their duties as executors and trustees. The 6ale had been effected only after public tenders had been called, and replies considered, and the defendant, H. H. Wilsher, being the highest tenderer, received the benefit. There had been' no breaches of trust. The defendants had not received Uhe sum of .£5354 lGs. as stated by tlie plaintiffs, bu,t had recoived .£3378 2s. Gd., being the amount payable as the balance of -the - purchase moneys under the agreement. '.His Honour reserved his decision. •