A CURIOUS CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 844, 17 January 1883, Page 2

A CURIOUS CASE.

The case or Williamson v. Prime and another came on in Chambers at Auckland, before Judge Gillies yesterday. This action, of which it was sought to have the issues settled, is one brought by Sarah Williamson (widow of the late John Williamson, formerly superintendent of Auckland) for the purpose of securing from F. L. Prime and the Hon. Patrick Dignan, a sum of L6OO voted her in 1875 by the House of Representatives as a gratuity. It seems that upon the death of her husband the Provincial Council of Auckland voted LI,OOO as an endowment for her and Miss Williamson, and that subscriptions were obtained from the public wherewith a house and land in Symonds street were bought for their use. Shortly afterwards the House of Representatives voted a gratuity of L6OO, and it was handed over to the Committee having, charge of the public subscriptions, and by them it was invested in city debentures. Subsequently the committee directed that at the death of Mrs Williamson and her daughter the property and debentures should be sold, and the proceeds applied to the foundation of a scholarship in the Grammar School, to be called “ The John Williamson Scholarship.” A deed was duly drawn* up for the purpose, and Messrs Prime and Dignan were appointed trustees. Mrs Williamson now seeks to divert to her own use the L6OO which was voted her by the House of Representatives as a gratuity, and she therefore asks in her declaration (1) that the trust deed may be annulled in so far as it relates to the L6OO, and (2) thau if necessary a further deed be executed by the trustees in respect of the landed property, and that they be ordered to return the L6OO or to transfer the securities in which it has been invested. Mr Hudson Williamson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. E. Whitaker for the Corporation of the Grammar School, who are associated with the trustees. There was no appearance on the part of the trustees, but they forwarded a letter in which they admitted that the facts stated in the plaintiff’s declaration were correct, besides signifying their desire to let the case go by default; they therefore entered no plea. His Honor said this was a most improper position for the trustees to take up. They would have to attend and answer, for they could not be permitted to shirk the responsibility that devolved upon them. Mr Williamson replied that they had no wish to shirk their responsibility; they merely wished to save expense, and consequently had failed to employ counsel. His Honor said that he did not think the time would be ripe for trying the matter until the trustees had come in, and the matter was therefore allowed to stand over until the trustees should have come in and pleaded.