THE DANGERS OF TRUSTEESHIP.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1930, 4 March 1885, Page 2

THE DANGERS OF TRUSTEESHIP.

A case In which judgemenf was given in the High Court of Justice reqently shows how real and numerous are tho dangers attaching to trusteeship, The judgement was on a motion to make the respondent, Mr Henry Mitchell, liable, as trustee, for sums amounting to £8564 entrusted by him to a solicitor for payment into Court, Mr Mitchell was, by sanction of the Court, acting as salaried manager of a colliery,- a moiety of which was the property of his late father, under whose will he was one of the trustees of the estate, He was accustomed to employ a solicitor named Tattershall, both before and after that persons bankruptcy in 1879, and had entire confidence in his integrity, In January, • 1882, and on other subsequent occasions, he paid Tattershall £Bs64—fihe moiety of the profits of the colliery—directing him to pay it into Oourt.to the credit, of the administration action,- Instead of paying the money into Court, Tattershall embezzled it and was sent to goal in June, Under these circumstances the .beneficiaries under the. will of Mr Mitchell's father (with the exception of himself and his son, who, as beneficiaires were each entitled to one-sixth of the amount) asked for.an order from, the Court to compell him to refund the money. Mr Justice Chitty, in giving : judgment,. said tho question, was whether the 'respondent had, as paid agent, acted with a "proper amount of care," The learned Judge considered that he was justified in employing Tattershall as a solicitor, for, although a bankrupt, the latter had nofheen struck off the rolls, and since his bankruptcy had been entrusted by other persons with

large sums pf money. But he hold that the respondent was liable, because lie had made no enquiries as to what had become'of the Bitmß from time., to time transmitted to Tattershall.... He 'appeared, said Mr Justice Chitty, to have iplaced a blind confidence in Tattershall, and the result was that he must hold the respondent responsible for the sums lost This judgment will create uneasiness in the breasts'of not a.'few trustees.; One would have thought, if Mr Mitchell was justified in employing Tattershall as a medium between himself and" the Court, that,'holding Tattershall's receipt, he was justified in placing entire confidence in him and could not have been held liable. But it appears not, and in future a trustee who wishes to place himßelf beyond the reach of an action of this kind, will have to dog every footstep of the lawyer he employs. For Mr Mitchell one cannot but feel profound sympathy, because there was certainly no wilful negligence on his part; in fact he took as much care as ninety-nine'men out of a hundred would have done, viz.; he: took, the solicitor's receipts for the variopiSuihs. The term, "proper amount of care" is capable, however, of a very wide application, and trustees who read this case, will feel very uncomfortable when they reflect on their own responsibilities, g