LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2818, 8 July 1916, Page 14

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT AN' ORIGINATING SUMMONS , A NELSON WILL CASE Tho executors of the estate of Thomas Cawthron, a resident: of Nelson who died in November, 1915, i-n\viu : ; some .£240,000, applied to a Full Cour: to settle a setics of questions affecting ills n'lnimstration of the estate. The executors were William Charles Sndlinr, li'M'op of Nelson, Charles John HarUy, s«lic*t« r, Horatio Everett, farmer, 'Phos. A. 'H. Field, ironmonger, H. I?. Duncan, brewer, and Win. Rout, land agent, who were the plaintiffs, and represented by Mr. W. V. Kout; tho beneficiaries wero represented by Mr. A. T. Maginnity, M.L.C., and Air. P., S. K. Macassey represented the Attorney-General, defendant. The Full Court comprised His Honour Sir Robert Stout (Chief Justice), and Their Honours Justices Edwards, Denniston. Hosking, and Stringer. The first question was to decide whether the executors should erect a tomb or tombstone to the memory of the deceased and his relatives at a cost not exceeding. -C 250, such tomb to be erected at the Nelson Public Cemetery at Wakapuakn. . It. appeared that the will, which was written fourteen years ago, said the monument had to be erected in a Nelson cemetery since closed, and Mr. Justice Benniston remarked that it was sensible to erect a man's monument where he was buried. The second question dealt with the disposal of land in the. city of Nelson of wliich deceased was a trustee for his sister, Mrs.' Maria Wright, and the Court was asked to state if the executors should conver the property to Mrs. Wright; and the third question affected property similarly held on behalf of Maud Bright. ' Another question was whether succession . dutv was payable by all or any ot the devisee?, leeatees, nnd annuitants under the will of the deceased, and the Court was also asked to decide whether the estate duty, was payable out of the. residue of'the estate, or whether tho residue, and each devise and bequest should bear its own proportion of estate duty. If .the annuitants referred to were liable for the payment of succession and estate duty, the Court was asked for an order authorising the executors to accept repayment of such duty from the annuitants by instalments, according to the circumstances of each beneficiary. The seventh question was- whether the • first monthly payments should be naid on the date of deceased's death or from November 1, 1915; and if the .first payments fell due on November 1. 1915, should the annuitants be paid in full according to tlifc amounts named in tho will, or should they lie paid proportions calculated from tlie date of death. Mr. Justice Denniston thought that question was a mere matter of calculation; certainly'one of' adjustment between the parties. , _ , The final question for the Full Court to. determine was whether the trustees under "the will ot' the deceased are the executors heretofore named during the life time of each, or whether they will be the holders for the time being of the various offices named in the will. ' His Honour tlie Chief Justice said it would be difficult to carry out a will ot that kind without a special Act of Parliament. ~ _ ■ Mr. Stneinnity said that'any proposed Bill would have to be submitted to Their "onours for approval. Mr. was concerned about certain properties alleged 1 to be held by deceased as trustee., but were gifts from, the estate, and liable to duty. !. Mr. Rout'said tho originating summons had been issued for the purpose of facilitating the drawinT up of a. scheme of ad;hiinistration. and subsequently having 'it incorporated in an Act of Parliament for the continuous operation of the estate. ,

After hearing further argument', His Honour the Chief Justice said that as tlie matter was one affecting trustees, tlie Full Court'would make an order in writing. ... STREET ACCIDENT CASE. MOTION T'o SET ASIDE A VERDICT. ' His "onour Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, in,'the Supreme Court (yesterday morning heard a notice of motion by Mr. T. Neave, on' behalf of Pi, and R Tingey, Ltd., painters, Wellington, to set aside a jury's verdict whereby A. W. Schaef, photographer, Wellington, obtained .£225 damages from the Messrs. Tingey, because a ladder belonging to them "fell upon Schaef while he was poing up Willis Street on a motor-cycle. It was established that the ladder was blown down by the wind, and Mr. Neave's ground for having the verdict set aside was that negligence on his client's part had not been proved. Mr. J. J. M'Grath opposed the motion, and after hearing argimiont His Honour reserved "lus decision.