DISPUTED WILL.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 July 1921, Page 1

DISPUTED WILL.

APPEAL COURT’S JUDGMENT

WELLINGTON, July 7

The Court of Appeal gave consideration yesterday to a case arising out of a disputed will. There were present Their Honours Mr Justice Sim (Act-ing-Chief Justice), Mr Justice Hosking, Mr Justice Stringer and Mr Justice Adams.

This was an appeal from the judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Cooper, interpreting the will ot Sarah llone\wood Souter, of Parnell, widow, deceased. His Honour ruled, inter alia, that a sum of £IOOO, mentioned in clause ii of the will, was a second charge upon the estate. In this clause, testator provided that should her son Arthur Langford Souter, survive her, the sum of £IOOO should lie held by trustees out of the shares ot the trust estate, to pay the annual income thereof to her son, Arthur Langford Souter, during Ins life. His Honour also deeid ed that, after making provision for the supplementary income to the daughters, Violet Winifred Souter and Kate Ethciwyn Souter, as set out in the codicil to the will, thi' trustees wore to set aside for th<‘ respondent, Arthur Langford Souter, the sum of 0100(1 out of the corpus of the estate, and to hold it n the trust stated in paragraph ii ol the will.

The appellants in.tlie present appeal were Joseph William Souter, bridge, merchant, Edwin Nevills Sou to. (sons), and Violet Winifred Souter. Kate Ethelwyn Souter and Annie Lilian Hunt (daughters). The respondent was Arthur Langford Souter.

Mr J. P. Campbell, with him Mr J P. Durham, of Auckland, appeared for tlie appellants, and Mr H. P. Richmond (Auckland) appeared for the respondent. After hearing argument, the courtdecided that what the testatrix intended was that the Clooo set apart for A. L. Souter should come out of 1 1 is one-sixth share of the estate. Them was nothing iir the will to justiiy his getting the £IOOO in priority to the daughters, and it would he set apart when it was available for the purpose That was the view of the learned judge in the court below, but, unfortunately, the order was not drawn up in that way. The order should he varied accordingly. Judgment- "as entered for the appellants, with costs.