APPEAL COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1428, 1 May 1912, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

SHARES THAT WERE DIVIDED. Reserved judgment was delivered l>v the Court of Appeal yesterday in the case of Corley and others v. Corley and another. This uns an originating* summons brought ui the Supremo Court at Auckland to interpret a clause of the will of James Corley, deceased. For the hearing tho Bench was occupied by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Jus«

ttec Dcimiston, Mr. Justice Edward*, Mr Jih ice Chapman, and 11 r. Justice Sim. ■lUp parties were Margaret Corlev, spinster. Jjdiinmd Mnhon.v, solicitor, mid. .Maurice Toli-y, settler (executors of tlm will of .Tame. Corky, deceased), nil of Auckland, plaintiffs, and .Mary Anno l-orloy, spinster, and Winifred' Corlev, spinster, Irolh of Auckland, defendants •loiiies Corley, a beneficiary under (he will m !he residue of (lie estate, was also cited. Mr. T. P. Wcston appeared for the executors of (he will (the plaintiffs). Dr. Baniford, of Auckland, for tho two defendants, nnil Mr. E. J. l'remlegasl, of Auckland, for James Corley, the other party cited. Tho clause in the will, for which an interpretation was asked, ran as uiliows:—"l B ivc to my (laughter, Margaret Corloy. M shares in the Aupkland Gas Co., Ltd., and to each of .my daughters, Mary Anno Corley and Winifred Corley, 53 shares in tbe snid company."

■'n J tnll ° of t,lO Pxpcntinn of the will tile testator owned ICO shares of a nominal value of £:, each. Prior to the death ot the testator each of these shares was subdivided by the company into live sliares of the nominal value of .£1 each, ami tho holding of the testator was therein- increased to 800 shares, which ho still held at the time of his death. lno riuestion for the Court was: Are wo said beneficiaries entitled only to the number of shares re=pectivoly bequeathed to them by the will or to fivo times the number so bequeathed? on 1° f °i lowin g facts were admitted :- •ii V? 1 tlle date of the execution of the «;>"■ tho deceased held 160 fully paid-up bas Company shares of the nominal value of .Co each; that at that date all Hie shares in the company were of the nominal value of £a each, and fully paidup; that subsequently the company created new shares of £o each, and issueu same et a premium of .£5, each Holder oS original shares being entitled lo take up one of the new sliares for every original share hold by him, and tho deceased took up IGO shares accordingly; tnnt, alter the execution of the will, each of the original sliares was subdivided into Ilvo shares of the value of £\ each j fully paid-up; that, at the date of his death, (lie deceased still held 800 fully paid-up shares of £o eocli, and IGO contributing shares of £5 each, in respect of winch ho had paid 17s. 6d. and 17s. Cd, on account of tho bonus of £o, . By consent at the hearing, the foHnring question was submitted: If the said benenciaries ar eentitled oniy to the number of shares respectively bequeathed to them py the will, are they entitled to elect whether they will respectively take that number of fully paid up snares of the nominal vnhie of £\ each, or that number of contributing sliares of the nominal value of .£5 each? Upon reading Hit consent, the Judge ordered (he originating summons to bo removed into the Court of Appeal, where it was argued at the last sittings. In Hit, course of h lengthy judgment yesterday, the Chief Justice held that tho beneficiaries, referred to in the clause, were entitled only to the number of snares respectively bequeathed to them by the will, but they mitrlit elect which class of shares they would take. Ihe judgments of Mr. Justice Dennis- ?"• ~f r - Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Him were in agreement with that delivered by the Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Edwards dissented. Re liad, lie said, gone f.o the trouble of writing a lengthy decision, which he believed was well founded upon authority, but it would tako about an hour to read, and h<. was not going to waste the public time by reading it. Counsel, however, would have access to tho files if they wished to see it. The question of costs was reserved for further mention.

THE PETPOLETJM CO. CASE. 11l the Court of Appeal yesterday, further argument was heard in the Gisborno case, concerning the affairs of the East Const Petroleum Company. The case, which commenced on Monday, is being heard before the.Chief Justice (Sir Eobert ! Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Cooper. Tho parties are William Lissant Clayton, lnnd agent, of Gisborno (appellant), and William Knox Chambers, slioepfiirmer, of Gisborne, and Geo. Hutchison, barrister, of Wanjranui, liquidator for the East Const Petroleum Company, Ltd. (respondents). Sir John Pindlay, K.C., with Mr. A. B, Mck, appeared for the appellant; Mr. C. T. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. C. li. Morison, appeared for the respondents; while Mr. Gco. Hutchison appeared in person, but he docs not propose to take part in th* , argument.' Particulars of the case we.ro miblished in yesterday's i«sue. The anneal is from a deci'ion of Mr. Justice Chapman, delivered in Gisborne Inst year. Leral argument had not concluded last evening vjhen tho Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.