HUNTER ESTATE CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 181, 2 July 1937, Page 2

HUNTER ESTATE CASE

PLAINTIFF CROSS-EXAMINED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 1. Cross-examination of Lady Hunter was begun in the Supreme Court today, which' marked the start of the third week of the action in which she seeks the removal of Cyril Paul Hunter and Thomas Percy Hunter irom the trusteeship of the estate of her late husband. Plaintiff said that in 1930 she was threatened by the trustees and their solicitors that if she did not sign the probate papers they would run the estate so that she would not get a penny from it. Cyril Hunter, she said, showher a clause in the will absolving the trustees from losses on the station and said that they could ruin her with it. Percy Hunter had eight years’ experience of running .the estate. In 1932, she said, she discussed the financing of the estate with the trustees anti they said that they would keep her without the balance-sheets ior so long that when she did get them she would not he able to afford to have them cheeked. Subsequently, in December, 1932, she went to Dannevirkc to see Mr Cyril Hunter to discuss his stopping of her maintenance received under a Court order. She appealed to him to restore the maintenance and he replied that he could and would legally starve her out and that she could take her legal redress. Sir George during his lifetime took continual steps to keep back the scrub on the property, continued Lady Hunter. After Sir George died she occupied the Dixon Street property ior nearly two and a half years, and in 1932 she was being charged for the use of the place oil the basis of £ls a week, which was the rental value arrived at by a Wellington firm of valuers. The main building was now let at £7 a week, rising to £8 a week. When she was in occupation the premises were never offered to her at a lesser sum than the £ls a week plus rates and taxes, with which she was debited. Tlie rates oil the property were £159 in 1935-3 C and £169 in ,1936-37. The Government valuation was £BSOO. PROVISION FOll DAUGHTER. In cross-examination by Mr Weston, Lady Hunter said she had agreed to give her daughter Betty one-ninth or one-tenth of any income derived from the estate when sire was 16, and onehalf when she was 21, providing she (witness) remained unmarried. Lady Hunter said she was continually on the station after Sir George's death. Sue would not admit that Sir George was a poor farmer. He carried out his own ideas and was successful according to their joint needs. “I must concede that Sir George was not a good farmer,” interrupted Mr Willis when Mr Weston pursued his line or questioning. “I would agree to that, too,” added Lady Hunter, “hut l never criticised Sir George in his lifetime.” lrlis methods were successful tor his own requirements, she added in reply to further questioning. DEFENCE OPENS.

Mr Weston. K.C., in opening the defence, said Sir George died on August 20, 1930, leaving certain assets. The sheep station was valued at £83,598, the stock at £15,604, the Customhouse Quay property at £10,300. tlie Dixon Street property at £8960, shares in companies at £3963 and mortgages at £10,806. The liabilities were death duties and debts £34,168, overdue mortgages on the Dixon Street property £11,050 and legacies £6600. The total liabilities were £51,818. The death duties were subsequently increasf ed and in addition there were testamentary expenses and ’annuities under the will. The only liquid assets were shares and stock which had to be retained for station purposes. On the other hand the liabilities were all payable on demand. As a result litigation legal expenses totalling £6OOO had been incurred. Mr Weston said the estate was insolvent in June, 1932, because it could not meet its debts as they became due. With an insolvent estate caution was the watchword. The question might well be asked: Jn August, 1932, was it possible then to pledge the stock to buy more stock, to do the necessary fencing or to cut the scrub? He submitted that the answer was “legally, no,” and in actual practice no, because the Commissioner of Stamp Duties had a charge on the whole estate for death duties which were not paid until 1934. In June, 1934, the trustees raised £50,000 with which were paid the death duties, some of the testamentary expenses, debts, legacies and arrears of annuities. He submitted that until the debts, legacies and administration expenses and accounts had been paid up to date the estate could onlv be looked at in the light of the cash available. The case meant more than a mere few thousand pounds to the defendants. Their good name throughout the country had been besmirched and they were here to clear themselves. They had treated Lady Hunter with the' utmost fairness and justice and so far from having any cause for complaint at all the gratitude was on her side, or should be. No honest man, added Dir Weston, would have spent more money on the property than had been spent. Tf trustees had done more than they did they would have been guilty of unbusinesslike conduct which, of course, would not have been fair to the creditors. Mr Weston will conclude liis address to-morrow morning. SPEECH FOR DEFENCE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Ju’y 2. The Hunter estate case was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Continuing his opening address. Mr Weston (for the defendants) said that the defendants even now could not incur much expense. If the approaching season were poor they would .again be in difficulties. His clients might well be proud of their work in the last six years. The estate had been nursed through the most difficult times.