SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2280, 14 October 1914, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

TWO WILLS AND A CODICIL LEGAL TANGLE ESTATE OF THE LATE MRS. S. A. RHODES. Legal questions submitted to the Supreme Court in connection with the two wills and a codicil left by the late Mrs. S. A. Rhodes were answered yesterday in a reserved judgment delivered by His. Honour Mr. Justice Hosking in the case of Moorhouse and others v. Godby and others. It will be remembered that after the death of Mrs, Rhodes, it was discovered that she had left 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 codicil, however, raised a question as to whether the first will had not been revived, even, perhaps, to the exclusion of the second. The whole value of the dutiable estate was approximately £222,987, and the duty would amount to something'between £41,000 and £42,000. The question for the Court to answer in oonnection with the matter was: Bid the codicil revive the first will, whioh had been revoked? If so, do .the codicil and the first will entirely revoke the second will? Or are the first and second wills and the codicil to be read'and construed together? In the action before the Court there were three plaintiffs (the executors), five different classes of defendant®, and a further party, who in certain circumstances would share in the will. Nine, members of the Bar were engaged in the argument on September 24 and 25. His Honour, in giving judgment, pointed out that the .first will (datea February 27, 1911) had been revoked by the second (dated August 29, 1911) and the latter was the will of the testatrix at the time the codicil was drawn up. The sole object of the codicil was to deprive the defendant W. S. C. Wigley of a share in the residue granted to him by 'the second will (though not mentioned in the first) and to which he would have been entitled on the death of the testatrix. Authorities quoted by His Honour rhowed that attention must be paid to the leading words of description in the codicil. The date was subordinate and, if it did not agree with the description, must be rejected. In! this case the context and contents of the codicil showed that it did not accurately fit the first will • although referring to that will by date. The leading and dominant description, "my will,".indicated the will then in operation and not the first will, which had been revoked. In His Honour's opinion the codicil did not revive the first will, which was not admissiblo to probate. Judgment would bo given accordingly, the ,costs of all parties to come out of ;the. estate and to bis taxed by the Registrar as between solicitor and client.