SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 662, 12 November 1909, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

f' ;.'FAMILY-READING . • ■. Anrorigiiiating eammoos, token .the case of Edward- Thomas DavM'TiiUe" versus the rFublic Trustee and otheKs/.wis.tlie, ..means of van application for au order^'pproving-of a.;family arrangement-in regard ; to ; the.'estate ,of ; the .late ; Edwar'i';lVank'; Yuile; *famor,•..■of Shannon. The case was heard .yesterday., by Mr/Justice Sim; Mr. W. H. -D. •Bell,;app&ring for: plaintiff,' Edward ■ThojnasDayid ; /^ u W'?> , all d. :lo'r Edward Tnrcas:: Yuile, ; a minpr'Hone of.'the defendants),- Mr. F. .'6'. DalzieH;fpiv :Beatrice ■ ;Marie lonise Banish "(defendant), Vajiu vMr.'vAV de B. Brandon, junr.,, for Violet ;;Mina;.YnUa; and Margaret -Julia .'Yuile,' minors,': ; grahd-: children:of the testator (defendants). The onlyother'defendant, Marguerite Yuile :(second wife of the testator) "was not: represented in \Oouit, nor was the Public./ Trustee, but intimation was. given .that, the'latter defendant/would, .consent to any older made by ' the'./Cpuiti..;. ■'■It"'was explained by counsel- that' , Beatrice Marie,:' Louise Banish , and. Edward Thomas David'i'fYuile were the' t only.;;survivingehildren' of Ihti testator. V ■ The ■ property: consisted, of 915 accresinthe Mount Robinson Survey .District, "yalued at £6 per-acre; 5t0ck,.;.£600.; two houses fin Austin!; Street,' •.four ..in-! Scarborough Terrac&i and two: in> 'Adelaide • Road; , . total valueJ'X77OO; furnittoe, :'iS25; jewellery;f.ilO'j A.M.R insurance policy,',£627': 45.; ien shares, in : Abraham ?and Williams,', , -Limited,' •637 10s.; two sections in Jervoistown, , Hawke's Bay, -XSO; ■'. The testatord«d ; on '■' Sepieiaber;. 8, 1908., .:• By his will; he directed 'thatvhi§ son, Edward Thomas David-Yuile; sKduld-haye the .farm, at Shannon,'and, after his "death, .it should' be/ held in trust by. the Ppblio Trustee for his : son,- Edward. Turcus Yuile, ?whjSn ; he reached the age of 25 years.; \ The .chief /defect of the will'was' that'it did not ;declare was' to: becom? of the ■ farm.' after' the grandson: had7attainedvthe;age" : 'pf-25.'. If; , the';,deed;..b:E. family arrangement■'were/' ,nbt,; : approve"dr.'.'an lnterpretatidn of bertain\ parts'; of t.he'-,ttfll:'.was asked./: ■:,.:;,"..;,;;;■:;,i;:~V ■■■■\':\'^:"'Vi, : ' , 'Vj■■'.;.,.I Judgment/was reserved.. /•..■". ; "

; ;..;'OTAT^S;AS : ;C®EIOTOR,vr Z\o : In the , .'case ■ 'of" .Bichard' i ;Tree Badham, liquidator in' the estate\of;;YeieX,"'Barker,and: Finlay, Limited, Versus 'Arthur Hoby, dentist, .Mr. .W.'H. D. Bell; appeared for., plaintiff, and Mr/ for defendant , . ..The.Coiirt : was asked whether Hoby picolv.e;, as a creditor:. in :"the"testater T~r-r ;^ : rr;;c-'.-„■• Counsel:.-,.'stated "thai;'., '.Barker;'-managing direotor: of.'the company; appfoached defendant, 'and' induced him to.eive.a guarantee 1 for f to'the Union; Bank in: respect of 'thecompany's account.* , : The hinT'a bond for. JS3OOO, on condition that, , .if- the com-' obtained' a release of the guarantee whbn, called uponby Hoby, the bond should .Tμi. void, and that otherwise it siionld have full: force. . The; bank having proved, in' the" : Estate, the' I question : was whether Hoby was entitled to I prove: underpins bond,, and...if so,- whether for theVamount of the ,-or for J1500." Barie'r ; had assured: Hoby. that-'he;. perfectly .safe,'as the bond'would secure: him. After/ bearing .argument, his 'Honour '(Mr: Justice • Sim\■ ■ reserved, his 'decision.-! ■', ;;-■ ■■' •; ■,

, -:.::V; ■A : ; SA^iLIiN& ; CASE.;,, / : Z'j^ : Three,motions were heard by Mrl-'iustdce Sim ycsterd»y : arising out of actions -commenced.by Edwin Pawson versus Anderson-and; Co.-,, Ltd., claiming'idamages'■•for breach of agreement.v;:/ Mr. ; A. Dunn'appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. H. Ostier.fbr'uie-defendant coinpany.s The defendant was'stated .to be the owner of'a 'sawniiU aiiu < timber-cutting: at Ohakune, and in 'June, 1908; it-leased the sawmill and the timber-cutting '.rights..to tiie plflintiff.'at a rental of per:month.■.'plaintiff failed the rent under 'the, 'agreement, and when \it was in arrear, r the :company, in August .last; re-entered and' tookrppsSessioh of the premises, in'terms of'their lease.;-' Plaintiff then commenced an action against the company, claiming/damages for. breach .of contract and- for , misrepresentation'in 'inducing.'hitii "to take the lease. ■ The motions wire-r^l): , , for relief against forfeiture; :(2)t.'for, an .'interim: inlunctionTo restrain to strike, out (a;/ counter-claim: filed ■ by; -the .'com , - ■pany, upoh/the.-ground-,that it/had jjained'-.ths claims witri a j-laim for tho recoverj of land; without the \eav6 of the Conrt. ' Alter argument it was agreed that the first two motions should be adjourned until the hearing of the actions - in Wapganui next month. The third motion was dismissed, With two guineas costs