SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 659, 9 November 1909, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

, THE READING OF A WIU. ' csTAi , !; or Argument vins hoard yestoida} by Mr, Jusnco Cooper on en oneinatinu summons undor the Declarator Judgments Act, by which it sollght tO'Obtam nn interpretation of portions of tho ivill of tho late William HoLt I-eun, merchant, of 'Wellington Th* plnin- ' faff? wore the Hon Geprgo J{'Lean, merchant, of Dunedin, Trancis Jlenry Dillon 8011, K.C, of Wellington. Arthur Edward ioMre, morthnnt, of Wellington, nlid Gorpld , ritagcrald, cnil onginoer, ot AVelhrgton, I tiU3tfos of the c'tito, and tho defendant was monn ljeatrico Lovin, 'puifcter, nov re Idlng in inaland, youngest daufhter of tho te*i.itbr Alt A! llycis appeared for tho plaintiffs, and, Mr. JI Chapman, KC, with him Mr. S A Atkinson, for the defendant i Myer* ipferred to tho affidavit o Ernest Tancred Dillon Bell, solicitor, of Wellington (representing 1 H D Bell, trusted, «bo wee abstnt ui LngUnd), who'stated that William iiort Levin died at Wollington on Sentgmbpr U 1893 Ho left a wldovw Amy Wvin, and. infant children Tho iiamos end eges of < thft Shut children (who were still living) worn, Elsa Geraldmo Levin (now Vogil), born June 1,1/ 18r7, who came of ago on Jund 13, J&08, Kolert lioncl Levin, settler, of Teilding, bori\ Itoumbor IS, 1878, vvho came of age on November 15. J899, WiHmm rit7gera\d Levin, spttltir, of Greatford, boin Dcccmhor 6, 1879, ■who enmo of n?o on December 0, 1900; and Mortn Bpatrice Levin, born March 17, 1888, who,came of ngo lon March 17, 1009. Arthur Poarcer was onu of tho.lfttter's nttornejl) in Nfw fZcaland ]31sa Jcssio Geraldine Lovin i married, in 1900, Honrv Bonjamm VogcU gentleman, of London, and thoro weio lour infant children. Amy Levin, widow, was now. in England, and had not married again By'his will, dated April 22, 1891, William Hort Levin directed his trustees to pay to his vvifo 1 the 'clear annual sum of .£3OOO, or the whole ' income of tho estate, whichever was least, u any year. In lieu of this annuity, hie wife,,if she married .again, was to recei>Q the clear annual sum of .£SOO. The trustees wcio to pay put'of surplus income flie annual eura of .£IOO to Taimy Fitzgerald, widow of 1113 , deceased brother-in-law, so long as eho remained his widow. They yieve also to hole the surplus income upon truEt, to bo divided equally among all the children when they enmo Of age. After the death or second marv nage dt nis info, the sum of ,£2OOO was to lio set apart foi his nephew, Hugh Loviu. It »as the testator's desiro that all his sons should graduate at ono of tho universities of , Oxford and Cambridge, If no son attained 21 years, and no daughter attained that age, or married under that ago, the whole capi tal of tho tru-.t estuto (less certain annuities) Mas ito be aeld upon trust, in equal shares, for his nephew, Hugh Lown, and his eistor, Frances Annie Kato Bcetham, wife of George Bcetham, of Wellington Hugh Levin was of age,-and I'ann) Fitygerald had not married again ' Shortly after Lisa Jessie Goraldlno Levin (now came of ago, the trustees asked their solicitors, Messrs, Bell,' ' Gully, 8011, and Jlyers, uhethor i they were obliged to hand over to tho oldest daughter the accumulations of hor share of the Burphw income They were advised that, &3 the widow, Amy Levin, was still ahvo and unmarried, tho daughter wasiontitled absolutely to the accumulations during hor minority, whioh should be paid to her The amount of the accumulations—JGCGo7 4s id— was paid to her representative in 1899, When Mona Boatnco Lvm attained her majority, en March 17, 1903, accumulation? of hor share of surplus income amounted approximately to jJ39,415 Ms 7d of an English Court of Appeal decision, given subsequent to tho payment being mide to tho eldest daughter, tho trustees had been advised to obtain tho direction of tho Court as to vrhother the accumulations should bo handed to the jouiigeit daughtei upon her coming of a,o, or whether they should bo paid into th* capital estate Mr Myers remarked that the gros? value of tho estate was The tostator was a business man; who had rapidly amassed wealth. Ho would not have known precisely what the income from his estate vvas likely to be. Uis wife lias a comparatively young woman at the tima he made the will, two years beforo his death. Hβ must naturally have looked forward / '-i? 1 T, lfo llvlns for n num ber of years, and tna'children wore growing-'Tip as, therefore, a,natural presumption that the testator lntendcM tint hid riiildron on attaining tie 1 age of 21 years should have a sum of ready money available for them. That money vVas to be i obtained by tho process of accumulation, Mr. Chapman contended that the daughter's as far as Iho accumulations were concprted, wai settled, because (1) the worth used m tho will weTe sufficient, with tho implication Of law in tho English case, to settle it, and (i) it came vuthin the meaning of the words m ths will Settling the daughter's share. Argument was not concluded when the Court adjourned until to-morrow,, s / t CLUB HOTEL, PAHIATUA The cfse of David Crewe, of Pahiatua, vwens Spencer Deveniah Pope and Staples and Company was hoard jestordai by Mr Justice Sim, Ib wa3 an originating summons taki-n out by, plaintiff to obtain tin order 6f tho Court as to hw right to complete a salo made p/ '"n of certain mortgaged premises through the Reffi?trar of tho Supreme Court Mr Pearock appeared for tho plaintiff, the" , mortgagee, Ifr Ostler for the defendant Pope, the mortgagor, and Mr. SkerrtsH, K.C, with, him Mr. Bunny, for Staples and Company ' The facts, as set out, were that the defend-ant-Pope was the uwnor of the Club Hotel at Pahiatua, subject to a, first mortgage to Eβ. cur 4 iaOOO, and to a second to seoure .£6OO He wade default in tho payment of interest on tho second mortgage, and Crawo, tho mortgagee, proceeded to sell Iho property through the RegWrar. By a mistake, caused through the puctiflriear directing biddora to include the etmount oi the first mortgage , in their bids, tho agent oi *he purchaser, Staples and Com. pany, signed a contract to purchaso the proptrty, subject to the mortgage tor .£5)00 for JCs7(fo-j;i0,700 in all Tho defendant, Stkpta find Company, set up that the real contract was to purehae Hie property subject to 'a first ' mortgage of £,00 The mortgagor had refused to consent to the, completion ot tho salo on the jT'JV'H.k ? hl i o|x sta P lca on<l Company said that they .had agreed. The onpnatini summons had therefore been taken out to ask tho Cou t to direot fts to how the sale should be completed „, 1 !^w a f!. nB T""? 1, A" Hononr rat<ie an - order that the ssle should be carried out according to the , tef a<, which wore alleged by Staples and Company to have been agreed to S<»ven guineas costs < rt «;6 allowed to the mortgagee and Staples aa r l Company,