DECEASED PERSONS' ESTATES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1588, 4 November 1912, Page 3

DECEASED PERSONS' ESTATES.

LIST FOR OCTOBER. ' Tho following is tlie list of estates lodged for probate duty with the Stamps Commissioner during October (of or over)"WELLINGTON. .£ Mary Ann .Tames M'Lennan. 33,644 Frederick W. Hales v 19, Ml Edward Ilowe 14,923 David Ballantyne 10,281 Charles Stafford Nixon 9,785 Charles Henry Jones 9,673 Charles Stuart ...» 4,819 Janet Speed . 4.056 Alary Hodge 3,813 William Harris 2,7G4 AnnAVood ; 2,587 William Robison 2,241 Charles W. Babington 1,82!) Francis lo Noury 1,414 George Robert Wilson' 1,412 Mary Howitt 1,0,11 Thomas Thatcher 1,038 Neil C. Jorgensen I,OSB John Anderson 1,057 Percy Albert Walker 911 James Olliver ' ; 906 John Rowds !)04 Ann Eliza ji. Bernard 794 ! Charles Lyons 70S James Bashford 739 Kate Adele Gardner GSB Peternell Smith 049 William Smith 591 Wm. Henry Gates ...'. 566 Frederick Win. Benn 50G ; , OT'AGO. William Aitchison' 25,903 David S. Wilson 0,552 James Key 3,080 Julia Pollort 1,777 Annie L Watson .' '1,507 William Spiers i 1,108 Aaron Battersby 1,038 Margaret Richardson i . 792 William 1 Thompson 757 Mai'y F-armo .. GGS Safrih L. Fisher " 042 John Holt G33 Agnes ,T. Stoddart 024 George M'Kessar 578 John Hart}' 572 CANTERBURY. Donald Cameron 6,860 Thompson Mackay .'. 4,946 Jane Lochead" 4,341 William H. Dawe 3,696 George Petrie 2,666 Jane Fairbairn ..' 2,468 Thomas M'Donougll 2,346 Ellen Nicholson '2,333 Henry Kibblewhite 1,921 Thomas Ryan. 1,674 Herbert C". Sefton 3,402 Genrgo Farquhar 1,4)2 William Cook -1,106 Michael Lowney 1,027 Isabella Rao .....: 923 William H. Price S3 Mary Legg \ > 1 759 J. W. E. Lelievre 7!fi. Denis-MacMahon . 723 John M'Gofman ...■. 565 John Eennio 531 Mary White 516 Hannah Oatmay ; 514 w«i;r«re ICnets ............... 510 : ' AUCKLAND. William Hall ....'. 12,507 Eleanor Pierce . 12,178 David Froudo ....' 8,822 Henry Lees , 7,806 James Thompson . 7,743 William North 6,974 Edmund. F. Mbriarty 4,659 George Healey 4*145 William Rodgers ...;. 3,009 Emanuel Butterworth ' 2,987 John Henry Heitman 2,904 Ruth Bridson . 2,682 Catherine Murcliie 2,671 James Rennick 2,570 Samuel Dickey. . 2,365 Bedelio Matilda Moors ~.. , 2,305 ! Esther Dalton 2,106 Annie Hobbs 2,108 Elizabeth J. Ragg 1,587 i Rieliard Freeman . 1,584' James W T allis • 1,251 Emma Campbell.. : 1.151 Henry Caspar Hstrt 1,068 Edward : Hanson Garner .-; 784 Mary J. H. Robinson , 615 Mary Sloane I . 607 John M'Gregor 509 Timothy Kelly Honan 502 OTHER. DISTRICTS. . Southland.r-William J. Moffatt, ,£14,166; Mames Collie, ,£2473; David' Strachan, •£1890; William,' Thompson, ,£1782; Maggie Gompton, Jens Hansen, 1 ,£978;, James Gallagher. .-£660; Catherine Squires/ =£808; Amelia B. L. Bryce, JBSS9. Westland—David Vorworth, ,£4017; Walter Atkin, ,£2326; Charles Chesterm'an, <£1073; John Diamond, .£679; Thomas Green, ,£589; Robert G. Surgenor,'.£sss; Alexander Gnnn, ,£521. . , ' . Nelson.—Thomas A. H. Snooke, i£1920; Catherine, J. Hodson, 'JCIISI. Taraiiaki—George TuhncclifT, ,£1.674; Robert A. Gray, «C 1101; Ann J. Lawrence, ,£802; Robert Cross, =E787. Hawke's Bay.—Margaret Oliver, .£1870; Harry E. Wright, ,£1778; Elizabeth Beamish, ,£920; Margaret. Sargent, .£603. I Poverty Bay.—Leonard E. Cotterill, .£10,157.

I THE ANGLICAN CHURCH , CONSTITUTION.

'PROPOSED .ALTERATION S. TWO POINTS OF VIEW. / Tho Primate lias issued"' through the "Otago Daily Times" a pamphlet on 'Archdeacon Richards's historical survey ot the attitude of the General Synod to the fundamental provisions of the constitution (says tho "Now Zealand Guardian, Duuedini. The Primate takes Hie opposite view to the Archdeacon, henco ail who desire to know both .sides of the question will be glad to read the Primate's comments, which are given in his characteristic -style. Those who agree with the l Archdeacon will value oIL that can be (■aid for tho opposite side, and that bins been clearly set forth by the Primate. Each writer represents a. body of churchmen, and tho necessarily personal equation is only that of friendly disputants setting forth what each believes to be the truth. • _ The Archdeacon's' position is that tho fundamental provisions having been, formulated by tlie conference of 1857, and then and subsequently acoepted:and acted upon as unalterable'are therefore unalterable by the General Synod, and that tho acceptaueo of these, provisions as ,unftlter» able was the basis on which General Synod first, existed. The Primate holds that the General Synod was'.constituted to be the Church by representation, and that the Church is inherently free, and that the General Synod, as her organ of expression, partakes of, her freedom. The Archdeacon contends that the Church is in danger of losing her property if the General Synod alters tho fundamental inasmuch as tho property hekt by tho General Synod is held on the jmalterableness of those provisions; and in support of_ his contention he refers to the decision of tho House of Lords in the Free Church case. The Primate in reply argues that there is lxo analogy between, the Free Church case and the position which tho Church will be in if it does alter the said provisions. Tho Archdeacon declares that the constitution . would be broken, hence there is an analogy. Tho Primate asks: "Rut Would the constitution bo broken?" aiul. holds that "tho disregard of certain provisions would ovist' out of tlie nature of the case for which we are not responsible, a.nd those provisions never could operate since it was declared on the highest authority, after .thev were formulated, that tho supremacy o; the Cran-n, on which they rested, <lid i;ut extend to the colony."