THE WRIGHT APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 4 August 1925, Page 4

THE WRIGHT APPEAL

PARTICULARS OF JUDGMENT WELLINGTON. August I. The Appeal Court. Sir Roliert Stout, ilis-eiiiing. allowed the appeal "t .Morgan and others m the claim against I). G. Wright and W. Nosworlhy. !u allowing the a],peal with costs on the highest scale, Mr .Justice MacGregor si a ted that the decision ol the Judge in the Court below could not he supported oil the law or the facts. He was satisfied that the respondent trust-.es had departed in lllis ease from the salutary ride- relative to the duties i.l trustees and must ni■ lc’ • b.\ the consequences arising in law from t ii• *i conduct. Appellants had established that, the trustees had not carried out the directions ol the testator, ns embodied in the will and codicil, and that a.s a body they had sold the trust property to one of themselves on terms which they certainly could not legally have given to an outside purchaser or purchasers. The Court could only conclude that Douglas Wright, who was present at tin* Court during the trial actively instructing counsel, bad no reasonable explanation, to "tier of bis conduct, us be did not venturi" to go into the witness box. Xo.swoiThy’V, evidence wa.s far from convincing. He did not appear anxious to help the Court in arriving at the facts in issue

, The purchase of Windermere could not j stand, fir the retirement of Douglas Wright was a mere formality and not an actual fact. As far as Surrey Hills was concerned, the .Judge held that the right of purchase was not assignable to Douglas Wright. .Mr Justice Jierdinaii, in coming to a similar opinion, found that the estate was manipulated in such a way a.s to give Douglas Wright substantial advantages never contemplated and never intended by the testator. “I have no hesitation in agreeing with other members of the Court that a declaration should be made that parts of Surrey Hills and Windermere which were not disposed of still form part of the triisi estate and that Douglas Wright must account to the trust for nil money received by him on account of the purchase money for parts of the properties sold and that further he must account for all profits derived by him from the properties since he acqirred them, as well as for profits arising out of the disposition of tlie live and dead stock property of the

j t rust estate. ’ | Mr Justice Alters concurred. . I Air Justiie Sim held that the jutlg- ! ment of the Supreme Court should be j varied by a declaration that Douglas i Wright was not entitled to purchase Surrey llilts or Windermere and was liable to account for profits made, and that accounts should be taken, j Sir "’Robert Stout, in a dissenting ' judgment, bold that the appeal should • be dismissed on the ground that there had been a. delay of sixteen years in bringing the action and that it would lie inequitable to Douglas Wright to give up the properties or account for profits from resales. Conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council was granted in security of £SOO.