COURT OF APPEAL.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 October 1923, Page 1

COURT OF APPEAL.

question of duties. WELLINGTON, Oct. 10 The Court of Appeal heard Argument in the case, the Public Trustee versus the Hoard of Governors of Canterbury College on an originating summons which was removed into tho Court of Appeal for argument. The question to bo decided arose in connection with the will of Edward William Roper, formerly of Christchurch, who died in England in 1920, leaving an estate valued at over £35,000. Mr Kelly appeared for the Public Trustee, Mr Gresson for Mrs S. J. Seymour, and W. T. Seymour (heueficaries under the will.) and Mr Alpers for Canterbury College. The main question is as to the incidence of the estate and succession duties. Mr Gresson contended that the estate duties should be paid primarily out of the general estate. Decision was reserved. A WILL CASK. WELLINGTON, Oct. 10 The Court of Appeal heard argument this afternoon in the ease of Amy Welsh versus George Moleock and Francis Redmond, an appeal from a judgment of -Mr Justice Adams. The appellant, Amy Walsh, applied under the provisions of the Family Protection Act for further maintenance from the estate of her deceased father. Under her father’s will appellant was left about ten pounds. The bulk of the estate, valued at over £20,000, was left among ten other brothers and sisters. Appellant claimed that she had not been left adequate maintenance. Air Justice Adams, in Die Supremo Court, refused to make any further allowance, hut ordered the residuary estate to he charged to tho extent of £IOOO to meet future claims for maintenance by Amy Welsh. From .Mi- Justice Adams’s decision an appeal was brought before 11 if Court of Appeal this afternoon. Mr Alpers and with him Mr Amuden appeared for appellant, and Mr Rim for respondent. Air Alpers, for appellant, dealt with the ground on which the court should award further maintenance from tho testator’s estate. He contended ti nt the court must take an ethical view and consider tho desserts and merits of the claimant. The court, he said, must look beyond the more economic position of the applicant for further maintenance in the present case. Appellant had for many years stayed at home and looked after her father. She was morally entitled to sipnc further allowance from the estate. Argument is proceeding.