BREACH OF TRUST CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 7 October 1924, Page 3

BREACH OF TRUST CASE

A FAMILY CONTROVERSY. BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSN., COPYRIGHT. CHRISTCHURCH. Oet. (i. In the Wright estate ease. Mr A. 1. Donnelly, in opening lor the plaintiffs said that the whole ease constituted an unhappy family controversy. A large amount of money was involved, and t!it‘ circumstances wore very coniplicated. It was claimed that. although Douglas Wright retired from tin* trusteeship in 1007 lie had gone on managing and directing tin* trust estate ever since. His retirement was merely a device to enable him to purchase the trust property, in breach uf his duties as a trustee, and the defendants assented to his doing so. Coun-

sel went into Douglas Wright’s dealing with the estate, and contended that his whole object, instead of being for the good of tbe whole estate, was lor his own good. 11 was submitted that D. G. Wright, and other trustees selected time, terms, and price to suit T). G. Wright and that there were grave irregularities. The time selected for the sale was during the worst drought in tin* Ashburton district for 20 years. One of tlit* valuers for the trustees was also valuer for the A..M.P. Society, who held a mortgage over the property. The Government valuation of the land was £5 009 more than the valuatlin of the trustees’ valuers. Speaking of tin* part the Hon W. Nosworthy had played as trustee, Mr Donnelly said that, in recent years Xnsworthv had been fo actively engaged in political duties that he had not dealt.with the estate. Douglas Wright am! Nosworlliy were engaged in a large business together, lie submitted, that this was Imrne out by facts, that in two big transactions, Noswortliy was guaranteed by Wright. P. X. Qiiartermnin. Public Accountant, and guardian of tin* infant plaintiffs, said Douglas Wright, bought the Surrey Hills propertv at three pounds more than tin* trustees’ valuers’ valuation of £5(1.900 11s. The Government valuation was £5.502 9s in ex: ess of this. There were discrepancies, according to the books, with regard to sheep, crops, inplements and furniture. In 1998. Douglas Wright benight 'Windermere, and then owned practically the whole estate. A sub-trust was then est ablisbed. The hearing will he continued tomorrow.

FURTHER EVIDENCE. CHRISTCHURCH, October

The hearing of the Wright estate ease was continued to-day, irregularities being alleged against trustees, one of whom, is lion W. Nosworlliy.

IVrev Norman (.biartormaino, public accountant, gave evidence, that Douglas Wright purchased bis mother’s share of Surrey Hills assets for C7.(>(ID. 11 is mol her assisted him to the extent of the divisible position of tile capital. I poll each luither distribution of the capital, the share ol I lie w idow was credited to Douglas Wright, irrespective of whether il was Surrey Hills or Windermere. Statements were nut in .showing the transactions by I). Wright with the Surrey Hills and Windermere properties. These showed that in the sales ol land iln* trustees signed, exccnt in one ease in which I). Wright and .Mr Noswortliy. signed, and in another ease a transfer was signed by Mrs A\ right as agents for tbe others. Another was signed " Mis Wright per D. G. Wright.” 11l tbo Wright ease the witness (.hiarterniaiiie sail! be bad not lieeii able to gel any pass book concerning the imprest account at Ashburton, < ul of which current expenses were paid. Witness gave instances ol the h'icing of certain moneys I rum a siibt r ist account. 11 was contended tint' no tie mortgage the advance was *ar 'o <xces, o' the I wo-thirds margin. I’- was

in p.*s* ible to ilisl inguish I rmii 1 1" books, the separate profits ol Winder mere and Surrey Hills.

Counsel ill reply to witness, did not suggest I hat the sub-trust had uol I'..reived its lull proportion ol moneys paid ter th- tale h\ I tough's Wright. <'lie 11 '•! me P'e laid 8!itl '"'l Gi*i 1,.,,' . , alii.il |.m ■ ..lll. 'tie *1 "I fel' rt*.»ls which wa*. nevci debited to Douglas Wright. This served to show low lax the trustees were in departing from '•''tilt and Overton’s valna-

lioll. Counsel:—"That depends on wliat arrangements were jna.le lietween trustees and M right. Qiiarleruiniiie’s evidenee inlieluileil •it, *.,• lie had been live hours in Ihe Imx.