SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1874, 7 October 1913, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

SOME LECACIES & LITIGATION. CHRISTCHURCH CASE. . In the Supremo Court yesterday morning His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman delivered judgment in the caso of the Publio' Trustee v. Shrewsbury Frederick Kingsford and others, a matter cover- ■■ inp tho estate of the late Shrewsbury . Kingsford, of Ghristchurch, saddler. Tho testator made a will in 1894 containing no disposition of his residuary : estate. His chief object (said His Honour) seemed to havo boon to provide something for his wife, and thereafter ! to provide for a son who was unable to support himself. He left soven children, who were now all of ago, bur the ' widow was dead. His Honour interpreted the will as ' follows:—"It is, I think, quite cloar that the income of tho real estate is not distributable during tho Mo of Arthur Samuel Kingsford, and that both that income and the share of /i. S. ( Kingsford nre liable to bo used for his support. In that caso tho income is tho. primary fund, and, as there are no . children of minor age, it is nil avail- j a.blo. If thero is any surplus after a ]; proper application of so much as is t necessary for that purpose it is to bo s accumulated, and will bo distributable « as tho real estate ■ is distributable. I Tlioro is an intostacy as to tho corpus, i but I think that thero is sufficient in S tho terms of the will to make it clear (. that the widow's representatives do not f take under the intestacy. Her estate ( was represented on this argument, as -I I the Public Trusteo is also her executor, yho convorsion into money is deferred r until A. S. Kingsford'a death, unlesß, c

of' course, the matter falls within Sections 29 and 64 of the Public Trust Office Act, 1908, or the Court, for good reasons, sanctions an earlier sale." LOCALE OF WIFE. THE INTESTACY OF CAUL WHO. The Public Trustee was the plaintiff in another case, iii which judgment was given by His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman. The defendant was Louie Olsen, and the matter concerned the estate of Carl Anton Wiig, deceased. ( The question'(said the Judge) is as to the presumed death of the wife of the intestate Carl Anton Wiig (or Janse.n), who died on May 25, 1902. The defendant is his sister, and one-third of the estato has been paid to her. Deceased was a native of Sweden. Inquiries were made through Mr. Newton, the Norwegian Consul here, at a timo when Norway and Sweden were under one Sovereign. About thirty years before his death, Wiig- camo to New Zealand with his wife. They had no children born in Now Zealand, and, presumably, none born in Sweden. He must then have been about twenty-fivo years of agOj and his wife was probably twenty or thereabouts. His wife left him when thoy wero living in Poverty Bay, twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, or ten years before his death. The nearosfc approach to information about her is that sho left Hawko's Bay about thirty-five years ago. Sovonteen years ago, "Wiig.(so it is Btated) told a friend that he had just received a letter from his wife. "It is," said His Honour, "apparent that if the wife survived the intestate she would' liavo a right to the twothirds reserved for her.' Though there is a presumption that blig is now dead, the question when sho died is one in which her illegitimate child (if she had one), otherwise her next of kin, would bo interested. In the absence of legitimate offspring, an illegitimate child inherits its mother's'property under the law of New Zealand." His Honour considered that the evidence of AViig having heard of his wife ,must be taken as relevant fact.. It was for Louie Olsen to prove that the money was hers, and .this obligation she had not discharged. Her application, therefore, was for the present refused, without prejudice. Costs are to be paid out of the estate. UNUSUAL CASE. DAUGHTER & FATHER'S ESTATE. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman delivered judgment in the'caso of, Emma Thain Claridge v. Flora Cassie. Estall; a matter arising out of the will of Robert Estall, of Wellington, settler,deceased. "The deceased," said his Honour, "when.over seventy years of ago married the defendant, who was quite young, promising (as she says) to leave his property to her if she left her position as clerk and became his wifo. Ho has left his estato, which comes to over £3000, to her. Tho plaintiff is his only daughter and his only surviving child. Sho is very much older than her father's widow. She is in fairly comfortable circumstances, her husband being a printer in Government service who earns £3 per week, and who, when lie has to retire, will have a small pension. Plaintiff and her father did not meet for many years. Deceased had quarrelled with his first wife, who was her mother, and thoy lived apart." , "In all the circumstances," said His Honour, "I hold that tho propor courso for me to take in exerciso of my discretion is to make an order that tho plaintiff be paid a sum of £200." OASES PENDING. Tho caso of Bloomfield v. Bloomfield has been fixed for Monday liovt, and Pukuweka Sawmills, Ltd.,' v. Taringarnutu Totara Sawmills, Ltd., will probably bo reachod by Monday afternoon. Respecting Adams v. Rutherford, a case removed from Christchurch, Mr. C. P. Skerrctt, K.C., has asked leave to havo tho matter set down, but the date of the hearing has not been fixed. Hills v. tho King will, ho commenced to-day.