LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2264, 25 September 1914, Page 7

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT TWO WILLS AND A CODICIL ' LEGAL TANGLE LATE MS. S. A. RHODES'S ESTATE

After the death of Mrs. S. A. Rhodes, it was discovered that she had loft two | wills and a codicil. From the reading of the wills, without the codicil, it would have appeared- that the second will .revoked the first. The codioil, however, raised a "question as to whother the first will had not been revived, even, perhaps, to the exclusion of the second. The legal difficulties of the position wore placed before His Honour Mr. Justice Hoskihg in the Supremo Court, yesterday in order that His Honour might give a decision to settle the whole matter. Already the executors had! proved the second will and codicil oh | an application for probate, although this course—as explained yesterday by the executors' solicitor, Mr. E. F. Hadfield —was opposed to the interests' of m the executors themselves, inasmuch as it' diminished their pecuniary interest. According to statements by counsel yesterday, the whole value of tho dutiable estate was approximately £222.937, and the duty would amount to something, between £41,000.and £42,000. Mrs. Rhoclos had first made a. will, dated; February 27, 1911, containing very numerous bequests. She revoked this' will in a second will,, dated August 29, 1912. This new will was in. many. re-, spects similar to tho first one, but it omitted some 'bequests contained in the Erst will and added fresh ones. these additional bequests was nne ot about £20,000 worth of Canadian shares.In Dcoember, 1913, Mrs. Rhodes ex-: pressed an intention to revoke ,tkat portion of her will which bequeathed a, shore in tho residue estate to W. H. 0. Wigley. Her roason for this was that Air. AVigley had been specially bequeathed the sum of £2000. Instructions were: therefore given'to a solicitor (who had ' never-seen either of tho wills) to draw 1 up a codicil to hor will. Before carrying out the instructions, the solicitor re- . quired to see the will of the testatrix. In answer to an inquiry as t'o where the will could be found, Mrs. Rhodes indicated that it was kept in a trunk underneath hor bed., A will was there found, and was; before the solicitor when tho latter drew up,the codicil, i which referred to the date of February

27, 1011, the date of the- will produced to th 9 'solicitor but not opened otherwise than to disclose .the date and. the residuary bequests. As a matter of fact the codicil was expressed as being the codicil to the "last will"' but the 'will to which it was attached proved to bo not' the last one of August 29,, 1912,■ but'the former one of February' 27, 1911. The codicil itself was dated December 19, 19131- ... .....'- The question for the Court to answer was: Did the codicil revive the first will, which had been revoked? .If so; do the codicil and the first ivill entiroly revoke the second -'will? Oraro tho first and-second wills and; the codicil to be read and construed "together P Mr. Justice Hoskirig liatl proyidusly decided the question on the application for' pro- / bate. He held that the codicil, not--'withafcandingthe,xefererice'tp February s 27, 1911, was to''be read'as'applying to : the last will, i.e., tho will of August 29, 1912, leave being granted for the present proceedings to be'taken; " • ■ . The plaintiffs'in the : originating summons heard yesterday,werer the executors of the'will,' 'namely:;\V. H.. Sefton Moorhouse, solicitor, of Wellington; S. Watkins, accountant, of Wellington: and John. .Studholme, sheepfarmer, or . Coldstream, Hinds, Canterbury. ' ■ There were five" classes-of defendants. They were named in the case as fol;' low: M. H: Godby, solicitor,'of Christ- : church, as representing himself and all persons {other than thVactual parties Woto). interested in contending that the, codicil of the.ltcstatrix revived the first:Vill dated February 27, 1911; the Victoria College, as representing itself and all such.persons as are; interested in contending that- the codicil revived the first will and-that the codicil and the first will entirely revoke the second will dated August 29; 1912;-. Anne Rhodes Ryle, of Londpa, and Many Rhodes Moorhouse, .of -Spratton, Northampton, as representing tnemselves and'all other persons interested-; hr setting. : _ up "the second will'and in the contention that if the first will is revived then the additional legacies and bequests in the) second will will take effect; W. H. .0, Wigley',' solicitor, of Christch'urch, on bohalf < of, himself, and 'all /persons (to whom bequests or legacies aro given by both wills, tho amounts, however, mentioned in one will differing 'from those mentioned in the other] interested in contending that such bequestSiand legacies' are .cumulative; and W. V. Ferguson, gentleman, of Wellington, a 6 representing the godchildren of the testatrix named in the first and second, wills and interested in determining if' they are entitled to legacies under the first will and if so whether their legacies under both wills are - cumulative. , Mr. E. F. Hadneld appeared for the executors; Mr. S. G. Raymond, K.C., of Chrißtohufch, with him Mr. M. J. 6 GTesson, of Christchurch, for the defendant Godby; Mr. H. F. Von Haast for the Victbria College; Mr. C. P. Skerrctt; K.C., with him Mr. R. Kennedy, for the defendants, Anno Rhodes Ryle and Mary Rhodes Moorhohse; Mr; G. Harper, of Christchurch. for the defendant Wiglc-y; and Mr. T. S. W<n for the'defendant, Ferguson. Mr. C. W;. : Niekon also appeared in the case on behalf of J. ,F. Studholme, who in certain circumstances would share in the .will. Legal argument had not concluded at 4 p.m., when the Court adjourned until 11 o'clock this morning. i