INTERPRETATION OF A WILL

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 45, 17 November 1926, Page 7

INTERPRETATION OF A WILL

’QUESTION OF FORFEITURE.

“The question 1 have to decide is whether the direction or order operates to determine the trust of the income declared by the second codicil in favour of the plaintiff,” stated Mr. Justice Alpefs in the Supreme Court yesterdav, in reference to a case concerning the will of George Hume, sheep farmer, late of Martinborough. By a second codicil the testator directed that within three years of his death his trustees should raise £BOOO from his estate, to be paid to the Public Trustee, who was to invest the money and tc pay the net annual income to the testator’s son, George Gordon Hume, during his lifetime, “without power of anticipation and so long as he does not become bankrupt or make a composition with his creditors.” The money was accordingly invested, and later Hume gave an order for £l6 in favour of Albert William Gould, solicitor, of Ohakutie. The order was forwarded to the Public Trust Office, and on its receipt the Public Trust Office advised Gould that it was their opinion that the order operated to determine Hume’s interest tn the trust fund. Gould then cancelled and withdrew the order.

After reviewing the evidence and quoting authorities, His Honour said he would answer the question in the negative.

At the bearing Mr. 11. F. Johnston appeared for George Gordon Hume, Mr. C A. L. Treadwell for Hume’s wife, and Mr. G. G. Rose for the Public Trustee.