Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. j SOME MOOT POINTS IN A WILL. THEIR MEANING SOVGHT. In tho Supremo Court in Chambers yesterday, his"Honour !he Chief Justice heard a summons for an interpretation • of thn will of Frederick Gerard lteichardt Roach, late of Wellington. The plaintiff was Henry Wright, the administrator, and the defendants were Eva Roach and Rita Roach, beneficiaries, and also Eva i'.oach and Frederick Vivian Connell, warehousemen, executors of the will. Tho question? submitted to the court were as follow.— (1) Are the policy moneys received, by tho executors, JiIOOU, in respect of a policy in the New York I.ite Insurance fcompany, and the sum of .£SBO 12s. in respect of a policy in the Government Life Insurance Department, liable to be. applied in payment of tha debts of the deceased. (2) Should tho assets of the estate be marshalled, and the funeral and testamentary expenses be paid out of these monoys in-exoneration of the residue oi deceased's estate available for his creditors? (3) If so, are the whole of the expenses of administration, including the remuneration of the administrator, or,_ if not the whole, what part hereof is. included in the term "testamentary expenses"? (1) If the answer to-question two _be "No" what part or proportion of the funeral and testamentary expenses and the expenses of administration should be paid out of the policy moneys.' (5) Should Connell and Eva Roach continue to act as trustees of the nione>s or of the share of Rita Roach or under order of the court have Connell and Lva Roach ceased to be both executors and trustees, and has AVright been appointed in their stead as sole trustee? Mr H. F.' Von Haast appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr F. E. Ward for defendants. Decision was reserved.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19110321.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1081, 21 March 1911, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
296

LAW REPORTS. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1081, 21 March 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1081, 21 March 1911, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert