LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1797, 9 July 1913, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL. ' | ONE SMALL PHRASE IN A WILL. WANGANUI CASE. MEANING OF WORDS "SHALL DIE." > An interesting, case from. Wanganui .'occupied the attention of the Court of Appeal yesterday. The Bench was occupied by Mr. Justice AVilliams, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. The parties in tlie action; wero (*■ r. Newsoino and another, appellants, v. J. D. Brechin and others, respondents. Mr. W. J. Treadwell, of "Wanganui, appeared lor tne appellants; Mr. U. \v. Uurrie, 01 "Wanganui, appeared for Jane AVhitesiue, an mteresteu party; wnilo Mr. M. Myers and Mr. J. \V. Aiacdonaid appeared lor the Public Trustee, who represented (by order ol tno Court) Amy ANewfcoiue, Mary Jane iNewsome, and I'lorence is'ewsomc, .all ol iioiton, England. What concerned the Court was a cluuso in the will of liidward Howe, settler, of Wanganui. By tho will, hall ol tho lewduo of Howe's estate was given, "to .the children of my deceased sister,. Jane i\ewsome, and, 11 more tnan one, in equal shores." The will then:.provided: "J-f any of the children, oi my deceased sister, Jane ftewsome, shall predecease me* leaving issue,-which shall survive.me and attaia tho age of 21 years,. such: issue shall take, and if more tnan one, then equally between them* the share which would otherwise have gone to such deceased child." 4 •, The parent of the infants in Lngland (represented by the Public Trustee) died beiore the date of the will, and the question was: Are they included under tho •life clause by reason of the words "shall die"? The Chief Justice, who heard.the action in tho Supremo Court, held that "shall die" must read "shall have died," and included the children in Lngmnd. Prom this decision tho beneficiaries affected now appealed. . After hearing argument yesterday tho Court reserved decision.

V/HAT RENT? A matter arising out of tho construction of a ieaso gave rise to an action in' tho Supremo Court at Palmerston .North recentiv, and. from the decision of the Chief Justice in this action an appeal was lodged, and came on for heuriQg yesterday before Mr. Justice \Villiains» liir. Justice. Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justico bim. 'ihc parties wero Ignatius Hamilton Loughnan, appellant, and the Palmerston Aorth Borough Council, respondents. Mr. C. J. A. Loughnan, of Paimerston North, appeared for the appellant, while Mr. i'. H. Cooke, of Paiiuerston North, appeared tor the respondents. The lease in dispute was one granted by the Borough Council to Baker and others, and transferred several tunes, "until vested in the appellant (Loughnan). The lease was a long one, running from June, ISU7, until April, 1939. A dispute arose over the construction of a clause reserving the rent. This clause provided that the property was to be heiu by the lessee at a yearly rental, ami for tho putposes of rent the term ot the lease was divided into four penod3. lor the farst period of seven years tho rent was to lie «Ke2 10s. per annum. ~l'or_ the period of seven years it was'to be such a sum'per annum as would—when added, to the ■ sum from ■ time to timei pay a bio tor rates, taxes, and _assessinent. except land and income tax in respect to _ Jio property—make a total roi tot the nextiperiod.of..seven years (or tho third iu dispute) it was provided that tho rent should bo 10 per cent, on the amount payable during the previous period of seven- years. : .The,,di|hculty then' arose concerning ' the' "rent' -for .the second period, of'>seven years. It was regarded by the; Borough' Council.as being- Alio, aud therefore the • rent ' for the third period. should be 10 per cent, on ,£125. Otherwise, the Borougn Council contended,' tho rent for the third period- should be'a ten per -cent, increase on "the amount 'payable" during the second period. The appellant (Loughnan) denied that the "rent" for tho second period was £125. He contended that tho "rent should be the difference between £125 and the amount of the rates, and that therefore the rent for the third period should be a ten per cent, -increase on tho sum .representing the difference between the' amounts mentioned.

In the Supreme Court the Chief Justice (Sir-Eobert Stout) decided in favour of tho Borough : Council, aiid.it was from this decision that'Loughnan now appeal-

c-d. After hearing argument last evening, the Court reserved decision.

CRIMINAL APPEAL. Argument was concluded in the Court o£ Appeal yesterday in the case of H.JI. tho King v. Harry I'ord—a special case reserved for the opinion of the Court on thei question as to whether or not his Honour Mr. Justice Cooper had rightly directed an Auckland jury to hnd Pord not guilty on a charge of bigamy. The Bench was occupied by-the Chief Justice (Sir Bobert Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justico Cooper, Mr. Justico Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown, while Mr. E. H. Northcroft, of Hamilton, appeared for Ford. TW Court reserved decision, "