SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 933, 28 September 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

INTERPRETATION OF A WILL. . LATE MOTTJEKA. SETTtBEI /The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered judgment yesterday in .tho/mat-. ter of the. estate of Walter. Guy,-of Motuekn, farmer, deceased. ~ ;. The-."plaintiffs, were John Arlis Guy, of Ngatimo.ti,: farmer, ..and .Elizabeth Emily . Hannah, Priscilla Kelling, .of ilotueka, trustees and executors'of the' will, and the defendant was .Walter Alex-, ander CochTiine Guy, of Motueka,, far■';iuef.;: , >;. ' '■■. ■■ .-,'■;; Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared for the plaintiffs and defendant,.and Mr. T. P. Martin for, certain' infants who were' also regarded.''as defendants.*. • The'case had v ,come up for settlement on an originating summons, in which the Court was asked for an interpretation oi the' following clause in the will'of the late Walter Guy.:—"And af,ter, the death of all my daughters, I give and devise . such residue ."of . my. real-estate .unto my son, the said. John Arlis Guy, and - his assigne: for '• his; life without impeachment ■of waste and on. his decease to'every son. of .the. said. John Arlis Guy and his issue male in succession so: that every.,elder son. and'.his. issue .'male may. be i' preferred yto every,, younger.-- son : and his issue'male and so that every such son may take an estate for life with.rema;inder,,- ; to .his first . and every subsequent; son successively . to ~ seniority'- in tail. malel";- ■''■.■'[.' ' ..The. main'question put -was: "What, estates;, the "sons of John Arlis 'Guy.-and their, issue l take, respectively under . the residuary devise contained in. the .will." ■ "It.will.be.observed," said his; Honour, "that: the - son John;. Arlis Guy , takes' a life estate without impeachment'of, waste, and that on'his-death every son ..'of. John Arlis Guy. and his issue male in succes.:sion'■:takes -an estate, so.that.-every elder .'son and his.;.issue male is -preferred; ,to; every*'younger son'-'and his issue male. 'John Arlis-Guy is alive, -and his sous , are. Walter Alexander. Cochrane Guy'and -Albert /Hector Guy,: born, before..the de'cease. of the. testator, and oho 'Arthur LawTehco-/Guy,' born the year-after the testator's'death, namely, in-1895. .."None of-the sons, are married,, and. tho.:'question. now is really whether. Walter. Alexander Cochrane Guy has an estate in tail, .male'.at-i'present... In mv, opinion, he has not. .If . ho'died without, issue, then 'Alber.t-;He'ct6r.'-Guy,'.would- succeed to tho estate,,.and. if Albert-Hector''Guv died without, issue, tlie question is,' 'What;,es-' tateVwpnld -Arthur Lawrence' Guy; hold ? 'In .my: opinion, this"has been, decided by many; cases."'; After .'discussing cases; his Honour.'.proceeded:.' "If, therefore, '-,the .ions'in being;of iJohn Arlis Guy .at the ■time'of';the.-testator's,death:without leavr ing ( ,' issue,' then, the, son "born-'a :jrar .after the testator's-death, namely: Arthur 'Lawrence Guy, will; take an estate tail." . .The. only pother' question, asked ', of' tlie Court; was as to : tho:costs of tko..application. .: His Hononr ; found /that -jthe': expenses': of; bhe'.'action' must' bo charged to the : ordinary .testamentary, -expehse's of the estate -(not.:.the residue, referred;'to in - the. summons).-. ,He" fixed,' the costs'of the "plaintiff,, who: had-, na'd:-a- preparation of-'the: documents; '"!-a't. i .'jßll:.'lls.; , ( wliich; would .include ,' ; the-'c6st of, appointment of : a guardian' -for the next. of kin, ,:ahd .allowed ■'£!'■ 7s. 'for. the 'costs' of .'the ;ohildren whom Mr', ilartiri represented.-, ~