AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1073, 13 October 1883, Page 4

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

An important judgment in a case nearly ’ * Tltfeoting Hew Zealand was delivered by ; ’ JJr Justice North at the new Law Courts, ' London, on the 18th July, tho Mr J. M. T Stokes referred to being formerly a resident of this city. The action (Stokes v. Ducroz) was for the administration of jjkMristo-ef JohujiMilburne, Stokes, but . ffiestio'n of s interest was as to the ' domicile of the testator, upon whiohjdc pended the question whether legacy r, - was payable of' a n.im . ■' legacies, many of which-were - i various hospitals in L.-n.ion ■ ; peared th*l„Mlf, s H t ''‘V ’’if 1 ■initirii 1 in Jamaic'. ;a -I’.-i ••> :*vSo'W mr..'; - UAUV‘ diedther ; u I ! 'U, uni., | toqoni't - .V r' •■•nalac.d oy in? motwt ■'■■in 1819. uni *.•- •'Vi?rc.:.Uo-d to a chem.st ; r in London iu 1820. U«* tiic.-s p.’.rsmm o’ j .studies, and iu 183» bs •■■■■ ; ■’’degree afc Kdir»b : hi r: ‘ hewentovsrt'j Su't Z:AtVud, wnoi; j mother then resi-*.’"- remain'"* >• •«*;*• ■ till 1845, wh*n he “'out to L./Ua ana h*l > • various medic,ii appoiutmen’.;. tn ■ i he met with jv- ace.d«v,t ■‘••“-t ‘V' | leg, whereupon ho return •: t ' • --' JI,J - j and in-1857 no ■.y;a - .n «ent r..r , ■‘■■Eesluid, and rc-m vued U l ' v j*’* ! cams back t.-. In t..- < .v'-' l *., i married, find •-■i 1834, -ho went u* i 'Zealand- joined bis mmber iu the pur-,-chase of 30,000 acres of land, whichfarmed in. pavioorship. a wife died in 1672, aqd ljr ! n >l ier cam® then to *" Lns.aiid, Wvmg a ■person to conduct the. tana m.-flevr oea- ■ land. The iostaior died-in September, 1880, and - by iris will be gave many logacicj and annuities, add directed 'the ■. sal® ■of •• his share in tfie New Zealand . ‘ estate, the-'proceeds of which .were do be divuied_between twelve of the prin- < o.paj'ihoapitals in London and one hosZealand." Upon all these, legacy duty was claimed by the' £ferown, on the ground that •the testator at ! ~the time of his daajh was domiciled in England, while it wjas contended'm opposition to the .claiiri that the domicile of Idle testator was in NewtZealaud, or if tiot- - that at any safe there was j ho, proof of an, English jjbmicile, and consequently; that ■ yonmuwrevert to tjie dotnici'e of origin, - whwp was of New Zealand legacies given to were allowed exemption'/ from turned out ihat t|ip New .Zealanders construed charities to mean charities to them-, selves and not to other people, s so 1 there’ - was 1 consequently duty to be paid upon" i'thq? hnspital.'iegabieß,fandthd representatives of the hospitals thought It very hard Afiatsthay should have to piy legacyduty Now tZesland’ land In England, and this was rths.gronnd upon .-which the r-qnaaiion.no w name on.for decisions ; ■ His Lordship, after going through the facts and evidence in the case, gavehis Jjqpipk^n;^hftt‘itthp : testator’s domicile of , origin was. Jamaica; where rbia. father was domiciled; that subsequently he acquired an English domicile. and,t,hst.hi& intention of going to N &ii Zoaland-was bbly -fdr' the pnrpose of keeping a farm and making iwslumcieut borne to enable him to return and Qswtn'En%l®ndt This intention was' f ally .expressed in a letter written to bis mother apon making up bis mind to join'. , .her'tHllibe Sheep jfarrd. . .After .returning-. / to England, and residing there for some years, he went out again', to . New'/Zealand for the benefit of his wife’s health;. after -her death hek returned iapfl: ItSnled in London. It was true that at firat-he only- lived -in a boarding-house ; but he afterwardj .ioined his brother, and lived with himPihl»& hbdae. These facts were sofiScient in -his lordship’s opinion to show Jbfaatj'.eyen it he ; had ever given ; ttp his English domicile j?y going to New

Zealand, he had subsequently; ncqnired a fresh domicile in , ;He should, therefore, decide that the testator'®' domi- ■■ cile English at the tHne of his depth.