SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 261, 23 July 1918, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

INTERPRETATION OF A WILL. His Honour Mr.' Justice Chapman vas on tho Bench in the Supremo Court yesterday and heard a ease by way of an originating summons dealing with tho interpretation of the will of Heinrich Kohn, lato of Christchurch, deceased. Tho' question for determination' was whether, the. deceased's, widow and two daughters, tho tenants for life, wero entilled to tho income of certain assets in tho estate in which they were at the testator's' death, or whether it was the duty of the 'Public Trustee, as the attorney for tho executors, to sell_ these assets and to invest the proceeds in some more substnnthl security. In other 'words, tho question was whether the well-known rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth should bo applied. This well-known rule is cno adopted by tho Courts in the interests of remaindermen, who are usually children of tho testator. It requires that wasting assets such as leaseholds should 1)0 sold and tho proceeds invested iu permanent tecuritics so that tho income might bo enjoyed by both the tenant for life and those in remainder. In Kohn's estate valuable Christchurch city leaseholds were held which'expired in 1917.. Mr. G. P. Hay, of tho Public Trust Office, for tho plantiffs, contended that such assets and certain shares should bo treated as having been sold after testator's ..death, and that tho widow and daughters should get interest on (hat sum only. Mr. A. Dunn, for tho widow and daughters, argued that the rule did not apply and that they were entitled to the inteVest of tho assets in specie. His Honour reserved his decision.