SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2388, 18 February 1915, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

A FARMER'S WILL In the Supreme Court yesterday morning reserved judgment was delivered by His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in an originating summons, which had been brought to determine certain matters arising out of the will of Alexander Anderson, late of the Lower Hutt, farmer, deceased. The parties were the office-bearers of the Church of Christ (plaintiffs) and the Fublic Trustee, as executor of the trustee of the will. Mr- M. Myres appeared- for the plaintiffs, Mr. J- w. Macdonald for the Public Trustee, and Mr. S.'A. Atkinson for the son of deThe plaintiffs claimed that, as legatees under the will, they were entitled to certain annuities. Tie three questions raised specially were:—(l) Whether the present surplus income could be paid to them; (2) whether the condition in the wiU as to tho marriage of the son was valid; and (3) how the surplus income should be dealt with ? In regard to the .second question, the particular clanso in the. will of the deceased, who died on July 6, 1911, was as follows: j "If my said son shall marry the fact of such marriage shall of itself instantly debar him from any further benefit under this my will, and the provision hereinbefore made for him shall_ at onco and for ever cease and determine as if he were.then dead." 'His Honour held that his condition was not valid, as being in general restraint of marriage and therefore void. The son therefore entitled to the annuity during his life, even if he married. In regard to the first question, His Honour said it was clear what testator meant, and that was that the son was to have the annuity, and no payments were to be made to the Churches of the denomination known as the .'-'Church of Christ" until the son's annuity ceased. As tn +be third question, the disposal of surplus income, the Judge held that the dausn providing: for the accumulation of tho residue of the income during the lifetime of the son was contrary to th« provisions 6f the Thellusson Act. Hie Honour-laid it down that the accumulation was good for a'period of twentyone years. After twenty-one years, ]' the son was still alive, the residual income. which would mean also the income on all; the capital after payment of the £73, annuity, would go to the next of kin until the death of the son. The costs of the plaintiffs- and of the son would be taxed by the B«?istr»* and paid out of the capital of the estate.

INTERPRETATION SOUGHT. His Honour the Chief _ Justice (Sir ftobert Stout) heard an originating sum•mons in' the Supreme Court yesterday tr-tirning .to internrefc the will .of the late Mrs. Emily Kebbell. The execute! nf iliß will, Ernest Alfred Liddle, was tlie plaintiff, and George Mayo Kebbell,' of Wellington, and Alice 'Wheeler of Deyonpprt, England, were tlia de-' fendants. The will was brief:- "Now. I having money deposited in the Equitable Company, do hereby leave to my brother, Edward Wheeler, the sum of £30, find .the balance to my sister, Alice Wheeler." At the. time of her death the testatrix /had the. .sum of £454 in th<s. Post Office Savings Bank; in addition to the, money deposited with the. Equitable Building Company; and the question was whether this further sum was included in the balanoe of the money given to Alice Wlieeler, orwhother there was intestacy in regard to that sum, and, if so, the further question arose as to whether George Mayo Kebbell had a prior clairb under the Administration Act, 1908, as the husband of a deceased who died- intestate in regard to property worth less than £500, or whether, again, the husband was entitled only to-two-thirds of the sum, and the sister, Alice Wheeler, to the remaining one-third. Mr. W. F. Ward appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. T. Neav'e for Alice Wheeler. Mr. G. M. 'Kebbell appeared in person to submit to the judgment of the Court. ■ •

After hearing legal argument *Ii» Honour reserved decision.