LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2507, 7 July 1915, Page 11

LAW REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAIi A CHRISTCHURCH WIIL CASE His "Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) presided in the- Court of Appeal (First Division) yesterday, and sitting .with\liim were Their Honours Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Hosking, and Mr. Justice Stringer. A Christchurch case dcoui>iedl the attention of the Court. _ Tiie appeal was from a decision of His Honour Mr. Justice Denniston, in the matter of the Family Protection Act, 1908, and the matter of the'will of Arthur Castriot de Renzi, doceaSol .medical practitioner, late of Christchurch. In the original action in the_ Supreme Cburtat Christchurch the plaintiffs were.Dora Hariri;iu do Renzi and Frances Emily de Rensri, spinsters,; both of London, while' the defendant | was Jane 'de Ilenzi, widow, of Christnhlirch, the executrix- and 1 trustee of the njll of the deceased. I - From, the facts placed before the Court it appeared that Dr. A. C, de Renai died 011 January 21, 1914, his widow (by a second marriage) being abtrustee . of. his will. Deceased and his first wife (mother of .the plaintiffs, Dora Harmaii and Fiances Emily de Ilenzi) had lived"apart from 1899 ,:,Until 1908, when the wife died. The two (plaintiffs), who were now 24 years and 22 years of age. had been in the custody of their mother ' during that period, had been well educated,, and, each now had property valued at £400.' Dr. d© Ilenzi made .110 provision fpr ,the maintenance of his daughters other 'than to appoint his. second wife absolute trustee of his estate, "trusting ■tjiat she will make adequate provision :for my daughters." His estate was certified by the Commissioner of 'Stamps asiqf the value of £4922 17s. 2d.', but a considerable amount of this was in the form of book debts.. The net amount in hand at -tli© time of the Supreme 1 , Court action: was £2805., Deceased's two daughters, on the ground that adequate provision had not been made 1 for their maintenance, moved the Court for an order- that suoh provision as the Court thought fit should be made out .of the estate. His Honour, after reading the affidavits Sled by the parties arid hearing- the' argument of counsel,' pointed out that,the estate was not sufficient for the maintenance of the widow and her obligation's, but expressed the opinion that in the particular'circumstances the daughters were entitled-to an allowance of £600 each. Tho costs of all parties" were ordered to be 'paid out of the 1 estate. • ,

From-.this decision the defendant (Mrs. de Renzi) appealed on the ground .that it- was erroneous in law, and that,' even if the Court of , Appeal held the plaintiffs- (deceased's - two ■; daughters) were entitled ' 'o an - allowance,, the amounts oF £600 allowed by the Supreme Court were greater, thaw, tha plaintiffs ' were entitled' to. Mr.- C. P .Skerrett, K. 0., ynth' him Mr. A. -Bishop, of' Christchurch, appeared for the. appellant^while Mr. S. G- 'Raymond, K.C., of Christchurch, with hiin Mr. H. F. von Haast, appeared for the respondents.

'" After hearing legal; argument, the <p6urt reserved decision.