RELATIVES AT LAW

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20498, 14 May 1938, Page 8

RELATIVES AT LAW

INNES FAMILY DISPUTE ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE TRUSTEE’S REMOVAL WANTED The hearing was continued in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday afternoon of the civil action in which Florence Innes, Sydney Charles Innes and others (Mr A. K. North) proceeded against Francis Thomas Innes, company manager, of Hamilton (Mr N. S. Johnson), seeking accounts and defendant’s removal as trustee in the estate of the late G. L. Innes. The case was interrupted by the hearing of undefended divorce actions yesterday afternoon and had not concluded when the Court rose, being adjourned until Monday. The hearing yesterday forenoon was occupied with the opening addresses of counsel and with the evidence of the first plaintiff, Florence Innes, widow of C. L. Innes. Sydney Charles Innes, civil servant, of Whangarei, son of the preceding witness and a legatee under his father’s will, also gave evidence. Witness corroborated the statements made in the outline of plaintiff’s case regarding the amount claimed from the estate' by defendant and the latter’s proposal for the abatement of that claim in consideration of the granting of an "irrevocable proxy.” | To Mr Johnson, witness said he had never been refused access to the books of the company. When he had had to ask questions in regard to the books they had been answered to witness’ satisfaction. Witness had not learned until 1936 that his father up to his death had paid 15s a week toward the support of Mrs Innes, senior. Case for Defendant. There was no contest as to principles of law, said Mr Johnson, in opening defendant’s case. Defendant was willing to give accounts, and had never refused to give them. Defendant opposed the application for his removal as a trustee on principle and not in caprice. It had been alleged that defendant had excluded his co-trustee from her share in the administration of the estate. All issues affecting the estate had been discussed by him with her. Again, he had never refused information when asked for it. Defendant did resent the implication of impropriety of conduct made in these allegations. The fact that defendant, had a claim against the estate, the defence contended, was no ground for his removal as a trustee. In evidence, defendant corroborated the statements made by Mr Johnson in his opening. All information pertaining to the estate had been given to plaintiffs, Florence and Sydney Innes. Defendant had not managed the affairs of the estate without reference to Mrs Innes, the plaintiff. DeJ fendant, again, had first mentioned the maintenance of Mrs Innes, senior, | to first plaintiff immediately after [ the death of .her husband, and, defendant asserted, she had been aware her ! husband had been contributing toward j such maintenance. Last year was the l first time the estate account had come into credit, the widow and children having been carried on prior to that by advances against income, from C. L. Innes and Company, Limited. Defendant’s trusteeship was not in any way prejudicing the estate and his reason for not resigning the office of trustee on request was that he resented the imputations made against him. after all he had done for the family.