FAMILY LITIGANTS

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20497, 13 May 1938, Page 8

FAMILY LITIGANTS

INNEB EBTATE AOTION TRUSTEE’S REMOVAL SOUGHT ANNUITY PAYMENTS DISPUTE With the object of obtaining accounts and securing defendant s removal as a trustee, a civil action wee begun in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, to-day by Florence Innes, Sydney Charles Innes and others (Mr A .K. North) against Francis Thomas Innes (Mr N. S. Johnson), company manager, of Hamilton. Opening, Mr North stated that plaintiffs objected to defendant being both a trustee and a creditor of the C. L. Innis Estate and sought a decree of administration. The estate was held up because defendant *s the dominant trustee, had made a claim for £I2OO, including compound interest at 7 per cent, paid by him for the maintenance of Mrs Innes sen., under the terms of an agreement made among the late C. L. Innes and his two brothers, defendant and H. G. Innes, in 1912, when these parties had agreed to pay together a total of £2 a week to Mrs Innes sen. during her lifetime. The whole contest of the action, said Mr North, was round the clause relating to the terms under which this maintenance payment was to be made. “We make no allegations against defendant Except that of being the dominant trustee and his insistence on being regarded as the head of the family,” said Mr North. There was no reflection against defendant's honesty or integrity. Regarding the repayment of the sum which defendant claimed from the estate, defendant had signified his willingness to abate this claim in return for an “irrevocable proxy” in favour of himself and 'his son in respect to the holdings of the other members of the family in C. L. [ Innes and Company, Limited. The | others, however, had not been willing i to grant this proxy. Evidence for Plaintiffs Florence Innes, widow, of Te Awamutu, a plaintiff and co-tr.ustee in the estate, said she had been the wife of C. L. Innes who had died in 1918 leaving her with a family of five, the oldest being then 10. Witness lived in Hamilton till 1935. She had never had accounts delivered to her by F. T. Innes, though she had | asked repeatedly for them, and she had not been allowed to take much interest in the estate until her eldest son came of age. It was not correct, as stated by defendant, that witness knew from 1918 that he was making payments to Mrs Innes, sen., on account of witi ness’ husband’s estate. Witness understood that there w f as a personal agreement among the three brothers to maintain their mother, l|gt she believed her husband’s contribution ceased with his death. She made no arrangement with defendant that he was to pay 15s a week to Mrs Innes sen., from the Income of the estate up to 1936. To Mr Johnson, witness said she asked for accounts up to two years ago. It was not true that since her son Sydney had been 18 he had been* able regularly to go in and inspect the books. He had done so occasionally after he was 21 and had reported to witness. Witness had not known of the agreement between her husband and his brothers for the maintenance of their mother. It was true that about 1935 defendant had spoken to witness of the payment of 15s a week toward this maintenance. The attitude taken by witness was that payment would l»e made if they were liable to make it. Witness knew that her husband, defendant, and Harry Innes had a personal agreement jointly to pay their mother £2 a week, but witness did not know her husband’s contribution. She had discussed the matter of the payments with the grandmother several times hut had not discussed her (witness') liability, it was not true that her husband’s estate had risen in value from £SOOO at the time of his death, to £II,OOO at the present time. (Proceeding)