THE RHODES CASE.

Kumara Times, Issue 1150, 5 June 1880, Page 4

THE RHODES CASE.

The Wellington Post gives the following particulars of the case Rhodes v. Rhodes, referred to in our last week’s telegram The plaintiff is Mary Ann Rhodes, the daughter of the late William Barnard Rhodes of Highland Park, and the defendants are Mrs Sarah Rhodes, Mr Waring Taylor, Mr Thomas Mason, and Mr John Studholme, the trustees of the estate, the three surviving brothers of the testator, and the children of the two other brothers, George Rhodes and John W. Rhodes, deceased. On February 9,1878 William Barnard Rhodes made his last will and testament. He died on February 11, or two days later. After setting forth the various legacies and bequests, the will, as proved, contains the following words ‘ And from and after the decease of my said wife, without leaving issue of our said marriage. and subject to the foregoing devises, legacies, bequests, and directions, 1 direct thet my cstid trustees shall stand possessed of all the undisposed of residue of my real and personal estate intrust for my said natural daughter, Mary Ann, for and during the term of her natural life.’ This plainly constitutes Miss Rhodes residuary legatee only in the event of her surviving Mrs Rhodes. But the plaintiff intonds to produce evidence to show that the words, * and from and after the decease of my said wife without leaving issue of our said marriage,’ were inserted in the said will contrary to the instructions of the deceased, and were retained without his knowledge or approval. In other words she will try to prove that she is now the absolute residuary legatee, and therefore is now entitled to the income srising from property to the extent of nearly L 300,000. A very formidable array of legal talent is engaged w the case. The Attorney-General and Messrs Conolly and Fd wards are the counsel for the plaintiff; Mr Travers will appear for the trustees ; Mr Chapman (instructed by Mr Cotterell, of Napier) for Mr J. Rhodes, Mr Gordon Allan for jT> Mrs Wright, and Messrs Izard and Bell (agents for Messrs Harper and Scott) for the other defendnnts. Should the verdict be in favor of the plaintiff, a demurrer raised by the defendants will then be argued. This takes exception to the legality of bringing evidence to excise words from a will which has been duly proved. In the event of this also being decided in the plaintiff’s favor, a decree will be moved for to give her immediate possession of the property. The trial itself, although involving the disposal of such an immense fortune, is not expected to last more than one day.”

The Christchurch Press says, relative to the approaching crisis" The general opinion seems to bo that the Government are wife for the session unless they fall on the Property Tax, Ministers are very reti* “ .to their intention on this, but the Opposition members freely <xpress their conviction that it will be modified iu some way, so as to soften the most objectionable features. It Is believe that Ministers them* ■elves are not altogether satisfied with the n»ooe of collection and assessment. Nothing however, is yet definitely known on the matter.*’