A NEW ZEALAND WILL APPEAL CASE.—STOKES V. DEOCROZ.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3803, 22 September 1883, Page 3

A NEW ZEALAND WILL APPEAL CASE.—STOKES V. DEOCROZ.

Mr. Justice North delivered judgment in this case, which was an action i'or tho administration of the estate of John Milbourno Stokes, but the only question of interest was as to the domicile of the testator, upon ■which depended the question whether legacy duty was payable in respect of a number of legacies, many of -which wore given to the various hospitals in London. It appeared "Sliat Mr Stokes, the testator, was born in Jamaica in the year 1813. Hte father, who had married a native of Jamaica, died there in 1819, and the te.-itator was Brought over to England by his mother in 1819, and was apprenticed to a chemist in London in the year 1829. He then pursued his studies, and in 1836 he took an M.D. degree in Edinburgh. In 1839 or 1840 he went over to Now Zealand, where his mother then resided, and remained there till 1845, when he went to India, and held various medical appointments. In 1856 ho met ■with an accident, and broke his leg, whereupon he returned to England, and in 1857 he again went out to New Zealand and romained till 1859, when he came bade to England. In this year ho married, and in t864 hjo went to New Zealand and joined his mother in the purchase of 30,000 acres of land, which they farmed in partnership. The testator's Avifo died in 1872, and he and his brother came then to reside in England, loaving a person to conduct tho farm in Now Zealand. Tho testator died in Septemper, 1880, and by his will he gave many legacies and annuities, and directed 'jbhe fjale of his share in the New Zealand bstaiift the proceeds of which were to be divided tietwepn- fcwplvc of the principal hospitals in London, and ono hospital in *-New Zealand. Upon all these" bequests legacy duty was claimed by the Crown on tho ground that the testator at tho time of his death was domiciled in England, while it was contended, in opposition to the claim, that the of the testator was in New "Zealand, or. if not, that, at any rate, there was no proof of an English domicile, and consequently, that you must rovert to the domicile of origin, which was Jamaica. It appeared that by the law of New Zealand, legacies given to charities were allowed from legacy duty ; but when the miestioia wa§ raised on behalf of the ■ hospitals, it turiiod oui; that the New Zoalanders construed charities to mean charity to themselves, and not to other people j so there was, consequently, duty to bo paid upon the hospital legacies, and tho representatives of the hospitals thought it very hard that they should have to pay legacy duty both in New Zealand and in England, and this was tho ground upon which the question now came on for decision. His Lordship, after going carefully through the whole of the facts and evidence in tho case, gave his opinion that the testator's domicile of origin was Jamaica, wliere his father was domiciled, that subsequently ho acquired an English domicile, and that his intention in going- to Now Zealand was only for the purpose of keeping a farm and making a sufficient income to enable him to , return and live inEngland. This intention •was fully expressed in a letter written to his irtojrhef upon making- up his mind to join her In tho iilieop farm. After returning , to Eng- , lajid' aiid j/esjding hero for some years, and here, 'lie yygnp out to Now Zealand i'or tho benefit'of'liia wife's health: but after her death he returned and' settled in London. It was true that he at first only lived in a boarding-house, but ho

afterwards joined his brother and lived with him in his house. These tacts were sufficient, in his Lordship's opinion, to show that, even if ho had ever given up his English domicile by going to New Zealand,_ he had subsequently acquired a, fresh domicile in tliia country. He should, therefore, decide that the testator's domicile was English at the time of his death.—Homo News.