APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 8 July 1932, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

THE HUNTER WILL ; . .■ ,■; ' ; i . 1 > • :’\• ■ ,| " 1 .>’■% \: •••.■•-'A:! DECISION RESERVED. (Per Press Copyright.) 0i ■- ’ • AIiEIXINGTON V,July .?. ■ Argument was resumed m the Churl h ; .; of Appeal, this morning, in Hunter v. ' '•Hunter case. *«« •' . - • 4 ’ . ; O'V Counsel for respondent, Lady Huntbitj i submitted^that if • the • Contention ' ‘ dfdtjlie'i appelant that ihe only-kinds of - incompetence, was lunacy and infancy A-©re correPtf t-an embezzler |/ Aquld de- . inand appointment a's. executor, and - the Court would have ho power to in- " ; ~ terfere. There- were- three grounds ' A upon which the Chief Justice exercised - his discretion to pass over .the f appe'llant. The first was the proposed , scheme for raising a loan to pay tho ; death duties in London; secondly, the : i : , facts as to the conduct of the present y . appellant, prior to and in . connection ; : h with the litigation, and' finally, - -the ■ facts surrounding Mr 'Hunter’s in- • . sistenco upon having Mr Dunn to act as solicitor, banker' and stock and st,a- . tion agent. There were grave objections, he said, to the proposed scheme of borrowing in London, i4 fhe propos- . ; >d loan of foO.OOO would be r quite Insufficient : for'. tl’« went* of the ..ywSfthirirte*' CJM ally orlpple.it. A sum of £3opo was now' owing for interest on death duties, and this sum was being .increasedby £0 or £7 day. .No allowance Had .. been made for . the: costs ,pf, the pro-.. . . ..: longed extensive' litigat’oh, which' were;- : payable out of the interest.' There : t might be a deficit; of £lO 090 or £15,-' . ; 000 on a London .loan., with no possi--' bility of raising* a subsequent moirt- .. gage. He submitted also that, it was imprudent to gamble • on exchange, which at the present ; t-?»K> was f an erratic, and unknowri factor; .. A? London • ) loan involved the payment of a pro- ‘ curation fee of^£soo,'.which .payment, j would be quite unnecessary if the loan . . ? . were raised. „by •' the Public Trustee. - ", A. London loan would ti© up'the .realisation of the estate; for-, a , long . and ' prevent subsequent financing:. Further ‘the . payment, of £3OOO interest would be required f l V?^ ; the estate ■. which is, at the present iimee> producing no income whatsoever. The' Public Trustee he never dare . insist upon his rights as mortgagee, ' whereas ,nii overseas money lender would liave na hesitaition at foreclosing if the interest .was in .default for a year 5 ' . or fhoi’e.. Th© -provisions, of the Mort- ’ gago",s’ Relief Acts would' not apply to the loan a-nd ,v there was a grave possibility that applications would arise which ’might involve the'' loss Of : the naiKcn vjubup . . • : ■ Counsel for the ; respori<3ent (Lady Hunter) continuing his argument, : submitted that the administration of , A the appellant prior to and during the . hearing of the original action was very material in determining whether the ? appellant should be passed ' over or not. Since .the date of Sir George’s death, his widow and, her' child * had v not received one pepny income from ; the estate, and' : they had' been re- i. duced to such a state of poverty • that . . Lady Hunter had been compelled to sell articles of personal furniture in order to support’herself and her child; v Counsel continued, “in of this, however, the appellant hq.& spent (s ,fpur, . guineas a week of the""Estate ~mioney‘~' ' . on the training of a young and expended .considerable sums on permanent improvements, which, in view of th© circumstances of the w’ dow and child, wa© quite unnecessary. Lady. > Hunter suggested, at a very oarly stage, that a block of land should be v. offered to the Government to cover the amount payable for death duties, and she had even gone so far as to enquire as to the willingness of the to accept such a block. Oyi’il HunwF, however, unwisely re- ./ b fused to ratify her offer, although the " whole of theCcomplicat’ons caused by the non-payment df t-lite cleath duties would thereby have been avoided.”

Consel contended, furtiier, • that the appointment of Cyril Hiiilter as the executor would virtually amount to the appointment of Mr Dunn, who allready had acted! for Qyril Hunter 'in his private capacity. Apart from any personal factor, fit was undesirable that the same man should act as sol-, icitor, banker, manager, and stock and station agent to the estate, V There was no doubt, also, that acute hostility existed between Mr-Dunk ■ and V.Lady Hunter, and that ilirfeieli'ng and friction/ was inevitable between them. Taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, he submitted that the Trig} Judge, in ..passing over the appellant and appointing the Public Trustee, liad jpereised his. The Court reserved its decision.