WELLINGTON SUPREME COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8151, 29 May 1906, Page 6

WELLINGTON SUPREME COURT.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE v. T. J. RATH BONE. Hia Honor the Chief Justice, Sir JRobert Stout, delivered judgment, on Saturday, iu the oase of the Public Tiusteev. T. J. Rathbone. Plaintiff'., olaim alleged three causes of action: (1) That the defendant ia the trustee for the estate of William Booth, deceased, which is being administered by the plaintiff, of 487 acres of leasehold land, being part A of section 5 block 2, Tiffen Survey District, Wairarapa, and has refused to deliver it to the plaintiff. (2) That the defendant, being manager of the testator's property under the plaintiff, was authorised to purchase tirnhor rights for the estate, and that while in a position of trust he purchased a timber right from one Robert Hannah in his own name, and has held it for his own benefit. (3) That the defendant iomoved certain materials belonging to the trust oftatf, and employed certain servants of the trust ostate for his own work. There was a counter-olaim for (1) Damages for the plaintifl's action iu lodging a caveat against the land oiaimed in the flrßt cause of action. (2) The uum of £IOB for collecting book debts belonging to the oslato. As to the first cause of action, his Honor was of opinion that the defendant was n trustee for the tes. tator, at all events so far aB the timber on the land was concerned. The proper decree to make was that the defendant bo orderod to hold the land in trust, so far as the timber on it is concerned, for tho benefit of the estate, he being entitled to the land <vheu the timber is removed. His Honor also thought jthat, until tho timber was removed, what the testator did would have to be continued, namely, to pay the rates, rent, rabbiting and fencing expenses, etc.: that was, tho plaintiff should be liable under the covenants of the lease. Regarding tho second cause of action his Honor held that the defendant must be declared trustee for the estate, as far as the purchase in his own name was concerned. iThe plaintiff would, of course, have to reimburse the defendant for any moneys expended in the purchase. As to the third cause of action, defendant had paid the sum of £4 lis into Court to satisfy that claim. His Honor did not think defendant had paid in sufficient for the use of the teams of horses, and he allowed £6 mor«. Regarding the uounterolaim, the first claim was practically abandoned, and if it had not been abandoned, the plaintiff having succeeded as to his first cause of action, there could not possibly be any claim. As to the second claim, his Honor held that the collection of the book debts was r art °' * ne defendant's business as manager of the concern. The defendant could not therefore make any olaim under this head. Judgment on the counter-claim must therefore be for the Public Trustee. As to costs, tho plaintiff was entitled to costs as if £4OO had been claimed, with £3 3s for defence of counter-claim, and £8 8s for second day, witnesses' expenses, and disbursements.—New Zealand Times.