AN INVOLVED WILL CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10130, 5 January 1911, Page 5

AN INVOLVED WILL CASE.

, 1 THE BOOTH ESTATE. OF INTEREST TO CARTERTON. By Telegraph — Press Association.' WELLINGTON, Last Night. An involved will case was dealt with by Mr Justice Cooper to-day, when delivering judgment in the action Mable Carrington Hutchison v. The Public Trustee. At the hearing Mr 6. Hutchison represented plaintiff and Mr A. Gray and Mr M- Myers ap'jpearcd for defendant. In .giving' judgment his honour explained 'that I thegplaintiff is a'daughter of-the -late' ,slr William'-Booth, formerly ,of-tOa:r- v | terton, wjio died on March 26th', 1903.1 She married 'during her "father's life-' 1 time, and there are children Jiving, the issue of the marriage. The defendant is the executor of the will and codicil of Mr Booth, and trustee of his i estate. Mr Booth died possessed of a large amount of property, including a property known as the Carring- | ton Estate, and also a sawmilling and timber business. For some time prior to his death this business had been j carried on by him under the manage- i ment of Mr .Thomas Rathbone (a stepson of the deceased). The Carrington Estate was specifically devised by- the testator to his eon, William Howard Booth. There u ere upon it certain lumber bushes, and at the time of the testator's death these bushes were being worked in connection " with his sawmilling business. The, capital val-1 ue of that portion of the residuary ] estate not used in connection with the business at the time of the testator's death was about £14,240. The plaintiff,, added his Honor, , alleged that there were timber rights in connection with the business of the rvalue of £12,000. "The defendant'denied that these rights were-of this,-or. any value. "In my opinion, the defendant cannot be held lo be responsible for \ business losses.' The assets of tho'business were possibly overrated at the outset. The defendant was directed by the testator to carry on the business. He took advice from competent persons as to the advisability of doing so, and was recommended to do so. In 1905 that advice was 1 supported by a qualified expert appointed by the beneficiaries. Since 1905. the losses have mainly arisen through corcumstances over which the defendant had no control. In my opinion the plaintiff has failed to establish any breach of duty on the part of the defendant, i The other two beneficiaries have, it is stated, not only riot complained of the defendant's management of the business, but have approved of his conduct, and have ratified the sale and realisation of the business. Plaintiff has failed to establish any case entitling her to have accounts taken on the basis she asks. She has had periodical accounts rendered to her from time to time of the defendant's administration of the residuary estate and of the business. She is technically, T think, entitled to have these accounts taken by the Court, but for that purpose the other beneficiaries ought to be before 1 the Court. At present I make no or- , der beyond declaring that the defend--1 ant is not liable to make good the los--1 ses incurred in J hc carrying on of the business, or in its realisation, and that the plaintiff has failed to establish any ground for having the account taken on the basis set out. If the plaintiff desires to move to have the accounts of the defendant taken on the footing of this judgment, I reserve leave to her to do so.I reserve the question of costs., and I reserve general liberty to either party to apply." \