LAW REPORTS. MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1384, 9 March 1912, Page 15

LAW REPORTS.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

SUPREME COURT. OBSCURITY OF HOME-MADE WILL. LAW GATHERS ROUND IT. : An originating summons to determine tho real effect of a will was heard by Jlr. Justice Chapman yesterday. Frederick Machin of 18 Gladstone- Street, Fraliran, Victoria, and liis children, by their guardian ad litem (Mr. I , '. E. Wnrd) i»o----ceeded against tho Public Trustee as executor of the will of the late AVilliani M'Gill, of Wellington, monumental mason, to define their interests in the corpus and the income of deceased's estates. "Mr. A. A. S. Menteith appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. J. AV. Macdonald for the Public Trustee, who represented also the children of deceased, whose interests wore adverse to those of the plaintiffs. The late Mr. M'Gill died 911 February 7, 1906, leaving a will appointing tho Public Trusteo executor nnd trustee. Deceased, after making sundry legaciee and bequests, directed his estato to bo converted, but his freehold land not to be sold during his widow's life, or until his youngest child should attain 30 years of age, and pending conversion after payment of an annuity to his sister the income was to bo divided among his wife and nino children in equal eharei. On his youngest child attaining 30, or his widow dying, the estate was to be sold, and after provision was made for the annuity, the capital wa? directed to be divided "in tho same proportion as mentioned previously when referring to the dividing of money among those of my family before mentioned that may bo alive at that time." The will went on to provide: "If any son or daughter of mine shall die in my lifetime, and any child or children of such son or daughter shall bo living at my decease, then the said trust estate or the share thereof to which such son or daughter so dying would be entitled if living at my decease and at the age of 30 years have been entitled under the trust, aforesaid shall be held by my husteo upon such trusts and subject to such- provisions .in favour of the child or children of such son or daughter as if-such son or daughter had died inuuediatqly after my decent*." Alice Caroline Machin, one of deceased's children, died recently, leaving as her next of kin the plaintiffs. The period of distribution named in the will has not arrived, as though the youngest child had attained 30, deceased's widow was still alive. Plaintiffs contended that, though tho gift to the children was only for thow living at the period of distribution, and therefore Mrs. Machin's estate was excluded on tho wording of that gift, as sho died before the period of distribution, yet the wording 01 the gift over to grandchildren was so far inconsistentowith this as to lead to tho inference that deceased's children fcojk vested shares at deceased's death. They accordingly asked the Court in construing the will to exclude the words "that may be alive at that time" from the will. The value of the property was very considerable, some .£.15,000 in all. On" this conflict in the will ■'(which was a home-made one) the legal argument of counsel on both sides was based. A fiirthei'.filiestion was nskeil by the plaintiffs as .to the destination of the rents and profit after Mrs. Machin's death and .until the period of distribution. r Judg.nent was reserved. ... DISPUTED PATENT. Mr. Justice Edwards heard in Chambers yesterday nrgument of counsel on a summon> to amend particulars of objections in an action for alleged infringement of patent rights in an apparatus for agitating milk. The plaintiffs were G. H. MacE-.ran and J. B. MacEwnn and Co.", Ltd., and the defendant Joseph Hopkirk. . . . -•-.•• ■'. Si?" John Findlay; ]C,G.i ;:l a'ppearcd"-fi3r' plaintiffs, nnd Mr. J. 0. Peacock for th-j defendant. Yesterday the plaintiffs moved to obtain further particulars of tho defendants' pleas and objections. Defendant pleaded that the plaintiff Ci. H. MacEwan was not the first true and original inventor, and plaintiff asked that the name of the. person alleged to be the inventor should be given. Plaintiff also asked for more specific information as to the ground for_ defendants' objection that it was common' knowledge that the apparatus had been in common construction and use. His Honour reserved decision. .