THE GIFT TO A PAISLEY CHURCH.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1742, 6 May 1913, Page 3

THE GIFT TO A PAISLEY CHURCH.

FAMILY'S POSITION. CASE AFFECTING BIG BEQUEST. OTHER DECISIONS. Hesorveil decision v:as yesterday delivered by the Court of Appeal in a, easo that had been removed from the Supremo Court at Auckland for argument, flio decision was by way of an interpretation of the will of the late William Adams, of Auckland. Ou the Ueiich at the hearing were their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justics Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Air. Justice Cooper. The parties were: Jane Potter and Mary Fulton, trustees and cxecutrices under the will, plaintiffs; and Alfred Adams and James Adams, sons of the late A\ illiam Adams, defendants. Air. J. K. Reed, K.C., and with him Mr. P. P. Kelly, appeared for the plain.(.ill's; "Mr. M. C. Jl'Gregor for Alfred Adams; and Dr. Damford for the Deacons' Court of Church of Paisley, Scotland (a beneficiary under the will). James Adams was not represented at the hearing, declining "on sentimental tiroumls" to be concerned in the case. Prom documents before the Court, it appeared (hat William Adams's estate was valued at about ,£!)0,0C0. The personality, valued at" about .COO,OOO, was bequeathed, subject to certain legacies, to the trustees and Deacons' Court of the Established High Church of Taisley, Scotland, to be devoted to the clothing and maintenance of orphan children of members of the Church. By the will the realty was left in trust to pay the expenses of maintaining the property, after which the trustees were to apply the income in four parts among the four children of the testator (William Adams). In easo of tile death of any child, leaving issue, then the children of that child were to receive that child's share until tho youngest of them (testator's grandchildren) had readied the ago of 21 years. Tho corpus on tho death of the survivor of testator's children was to go to tho Paisley Church. By a codicil it was provided that the share of any child (lying and leaving issue should be paid to the grandchildren (of testator) for life instead of until the attainment of the majority. William Adams had four childrenAlfred Adams, James Adams, Jessie Prime, and Jane Pqtter. One of theso Jessie Prime, died without issue, and her death led to the raising of the following questions:— Is the trust as to the testator's real estato in favour of the Paisley Church valid or binding, and is it void as infring- • ing the rule. against perpetuities? If tho trust is valid and binding, then (Jessie Primo having died without issue)'are the trustees forced, or entitled, to pay the Paisley Cliurch the share of income to which during her lit'etimo Jessie Prime was entitled, or must any payment be postponed, and, if so, until what time? If the said trust, is void, then what persons are entitled, and in what share, to the income payable during her lifetime, to Jessie Prime? In the course of a lengthy' judgment, tho Chief Justice held that the. gift to the Deacons' Court of the Established High Church of Paisley was and that the rule against perpetuities had not" h?'_'n infringed. The second question must, his Honour held, be answered in the allirmativo, as, accurding to previous decisions, the Deacons' Court was entitled at once to the income. Mr. Justice Deuniston, Jlr. Justice Edwards, and Air. Justice Cooper agreed with this finding, but Jlr. Justice "Williams dissented. ,

POWER OF CORPORATIONS. TO HOLD LAND. An important question as to the power of corporations to hold land was involved in a case before the Court of Appeal last month, when tko bench was occupied by the Chief Justice'' (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Chapman. Reserved judgment was delivered by the Court yesterday. The point arose in a claim for possession, which came on for hearing in the Supreme Court last November, and which was removed into the Court of Appeal for argument by order of tlio Chief Justice. The plaintiff in the action was the Lower Hutt Corporation, and the defendants were Edmond Hayes, retired builder, Patrick Casey, retired publican, and Frank Meyrick, baker, all of Lower Hutt. At the hearing Mr. C. H. Trcadwell appeared for the corporation, while Mr. T. F. Martin appeared for the defendants. In the .statement of claim it was alleged that by virtue of a certificate of title issued under the Land Transfer Act on November 13, 1911, the Lower Hutt Corporation was the owner in fee simple of certain land (part of Section 25) in the Hutt district. . The defendants, Hayes and Casey, were now in possession of that land, and on a portion of it they had erected a shop and dwelling, now- occupied by the defendant, Meyrick. The defendants refused to deliver up the lauds and the corporation, therefore, claimed possession and JEIO9 mesne profits. By way of defence, Hayes, Casey, and Meyrick denied the corporation's title to the land, and also denied liability for "mesne" profits. Defendants said that if the' corporation proved the certificate of title then 'lie land comprised therein would consist of certain streets shown on tho subdivisional plan of what was known as the Martin Estate, and marked on the deposited plan in IS7S. These streets had never been taken over by (he local authority, nor had any of user arisen. Defendants (TTayes, Casey, and Meyrick) also alleged that the action was not now being brought in tho interests of the ratepayers, but rather for the purposes of the Hutt Bowing and Tennis Club, to whosg land the roads would give access. Another case—the Lower Hutt Borough Council v. Miriama Heketa—involved similar points, and it was agreed that both actions should be heard together. Tho Court of Appeal yesterday expressed the unanimous opinion that the Lower Hutt Corporation was entitled to possession of the land. Costs on the lowestscale were allowed. The question of mesne profits was remitted to the Supremo Court, while the riuestion of'dealing with buildings on the land should, it: was suggested, be settled by arrangement between the parties. 1

SOUTHLAND LAND CASE. MIXING CO.'* APPEAL ALLOWED. The Court allowed the appeal in a Southland case in which the Round Hill Mining Company, Ltd., were appellants, unci the. Oni'uwci'a ("iiild Minin<! Co.. Ltd., respondents. Jlr. W. A. *tont, of Invertar;:ill, with !iim Mr. J. L. Stoul, appeared for appellants at t he hcnriiifr last month, while Mr. John llpffatt, of Invcnarpill, appeared for the respondents. I'lic cn<e was first heard before the OtaßO "Warden's Court at Kiverton, when the Round Hill Company applied for a certificate of casement o»<l an order for the diversion of a water-course. The warden held that a sludge channel proclaimed ns such was still a stream, and that he had power to order its diversion. The diversion across the Ourawej'a claim would not atfect the Ottrawcra present or future workings, and' would enable the Round Ilill Company to work a larger area. Ourawera Company had a rifiht to compensation in icspect of the easement so that they were amply protected. The v.-avdeit granted the application for a diversion, and alio tiio easssicat over tlie

Ourawera claim, in order that tlie diversion might bo made. In the Supreme Court Sir Joshua Williams heard an appeal from tho warden s decision. His Honour gave judgment for the appellants (the Ourawera Company), ho holding that the warden had no jurisdiction to authorise the diversion of a stream which had been proclaimed a sludge channel. It was against this decision that the Round Ilill Company now appealed. i A judgment of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Chapman, and as indicated above, the appeal was allowed. Cc.sts on the middle scale were allowed, as from a distance. Co-ts of tlie' litigation in 111'. 1 Warden's Court were allowed at tlie rale allowed by the Supreme Court. PATENT INPHIMGED. INCREASED DAMAGES GIVEN. Judgment was alio delivered ; n the case of Josepn Hopiiirl; v. bcorge liatr.iigiuu Machwan ana J. B. Macbwau and Co., Ltd., heard last month beiore .Ur. .lusiue Williams Mr. Justice Dcnui-.i en, Mr. Ju ; - lice Edwards, ami Jlr. Justice Cuoper. Tius was an appeal from tlie judgment of Jus Honour me Chief Justice in an action m wnich the respondents wcru plaiiitill's and tlie appellant was deiendant. The claim in tne action was tor an injunction to restrain tne infringement ot a patent for a milk agitator, and lor damages caused by past u/ji-s or inlnngemcnt. Tlie appellant ucuitd the vmiilily of tne respondents' patent, and he denied that Jij had infringed that patent. The learned Judge upheld the validity of tlie patent, and gave judgment for an injunction, and for damages, which lie assetswlat ISs. The appeal was from this judgment. Tiiert* was a crass-appeal, «pon the grjutid that the damages awarded were insuiheicnt. A'. I lie hearing Mr. T. Ncave, with whom was Mr. D. li. Uoggard, appeared for the appellant Ilopkirk; aim Sir John Findl •}', with whom Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared, represented Ci. 11. and J. B. MatEwai,. Air. Justice Edwards yesterday delivered a judgment of 'the Court, liisuii-sing llopkirk's appeal. In regard to the crot.s the Court, alter going fully into the matter, decided that the damages recovered by MacEwans mast be inca-a-cd from Al.'il JSs. to .£217 lis., and to that extent the cross-appeal was allowed. Ccsts were allowed MacEwans on tho highest scale, and the ccsts allowed thorn ill lite Court below were increased, and allowed as upon a sum of .£(100.

... DISABLED SAILING-SHIP. HOW MUCH FOE TOWING? When the Court of Appeal had delivered all judgments -that were ready yesterday morning, Mr. Justice Edward?, M>. Justice Cooper, and air. J u*uce Cuapiutui sat to hear an appeal from au Admiralty Court decision on a claim lor salvage 111 connection with tho towing of the disabled s.utiug vessel Wanagnui on Septumbe:' 21 and 22 last. ' The claim liau Ueen first heard in November last. On that occasion, the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) presided, and with' him as assessors wero Captain D. J. Watsou aiul Captain it. J. Gillespie. There were two actions, and both uero taken together. The first case was that in wliicli Ilia owners, master, and crew of the steamer Arapawa proceeded against tho ship ' Wanganni. her cargo, and freight, to recover the sum of iISOO for salvage. In* Ihe second case the owners, master, and crew of tho steamer Kapiti made a claim for Jiotll for services rendered. Details of {ho mishap to the W;ing.'iiiui are familiar to the public. Particulars of tho claim And the answer thereto were published at length when the case was before the Court below. It appeared at that time that negotiations had been opeutd up to sett.e the question of salvage, but the parties could not agree upon the matter, and as plainlilis Considered the amount tendered (AJOO) was not sufficient, they decided to come to the Coinf. 11l the course of a considered judgment, the CiK'.-i Justice, who hud cuutiillcJ the assessors, said: • "Tlio assessors think, and I agree, that if the AliOO had bcon accepted, and say a. fourth gi".en to the creivs, that would have been a fair reward for the services. It is a pity the masters and seamen were not consulted and their advice sought in the circumstances. 1 consider this should have been done. "I am of opinion that, looking at all the circumstances the Court should award the sum of .£3OO, without costs, and deduct £25 fcr costs to tliO respondent. Tho notice reserved tho right to contest that .£3OO was a fair sum, and this being so no further deduction, should 1)3 allowed. The Court is not asked to declare what sum should be paid to each vessel: only to declare the portion that should bo allotted to the crew. I am of opinion that JE73 should bo awarded to the crew. The balance. jC'2OO, must pay the ships and tho costs the owners have been to in tlie acuon. As to tlie distribution of the £75, seeing the sum is not large, tho lair distribution would lie, in my opinion, pro rata according' to tho wages paid the master and crew." Judgment was given accordingly. Prom tjlis decision tho owners of the Wangainu appealed on the ground that it was erroneous in law. Mr. C. B. Morison, Iv.C., with' Mr. W. 11. D. Hell, appeared for the appellants, while Mr. li. is.. Ivirkcaldie appeared lor t'lre respondents. Argument was not concluded at -1.30 p.m. yesterday, ivheu the Court adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.