BRUNNER RELIEF FUND.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 28 September 1901, Page 3

BRUNNER RELIEF FUND.

Supreme Court Case.

Judgment Deferred

(our own CORRESPONDENT )

Wellington, This Day,

In the Supreme Court to-day the Chief Justice heard argument in the cases of Moore and others v. Public Trustee, actions arising out of the Brun-

ner Mine disaster in March 1896. The plaintiffs’ Mesdames Moore, Robinson, and Davis —were widows of men who lost their lives in the disaster.

The sum of £31,147 was raised by Dublic subscription and vested in the Public Trustee subject to certain conditions. An Advisory Board was set up to confer as to the administration of the fund with the Public Trustee who was given power on the happening of certain events to stop them after consulting the Board under a scheme which was drawn up, widows were to be allowed 12/- and each child 4/- per week. The widows allowance to continue for life or while the fund existed. The plaintiffs, were re-married and it was decided by the Public Trustee to stop their allowance paying them £65 as a marriage allowance.

Mr. Guinness, who appeared for the plaintiffs, said if the Public Trustee had the power to stop allowances, he had done so according to the instrument. He maintained that the Board had not been consulted in the matter, and contended that each such case required a special resolution of the Board. The Board agreed to consider the plaintiffs’ case, and decided that the payments should be continued. The decision arrived at by the Public Trustee in February of tiffs year was that they should be paid £65, and their allowances beyond that amount be stopped. His Honor said that the definition of a “ widow ” was generally accepted as meaning during “ widowhood,” and that the widow was not a widow after remarried. It was generally accepted as so in wills.

Mr Guinness submitted that in wills the widow was generally provided for by a clause reading “ whilst she remains my widow.” He contended that no such provision was made in the present instrument. With reference to the clause

giving power to the Trustee to stop allowances “ on the happening of an event,’’ he contended that the framers of the instrument did not contemplate that marriage was an “ event ” that should warrant the stoppage of the alldwanc*. What was meant by “ event ’’ w.s a person becoming a lunatic or dissolute character who was repeatedly being placed in gaol. The money was raised for persons such as the plaintiffs, and if marriage was to be considered an “ event,” the money would probably eventually fall into the hands of tne Public Trustee. Ho contended that the interpretation placed on the term “ event ” was really against public policy as the effect would be to discourage marriage.

Mr T. W. Hislop, for the Public Trustee, submitted that the Trustee after consulting the Board could act retrospectively, and that the Public Trustee had power under the deed to administer its provision according to his interpretation. His Honor deferred judgment.