WILL OF LATE JOHN STEVENS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3689, 10 September 1927, Page 4

WILL OF LATE JOHN STEVENS.

CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT

Wellington, Last Night.

An originating summons asking that death be presumed and another to determine the commission of the trustees and costs of 'litigation camo before Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiffs were James Hopkins Stevens, Palmerston North, retired civil servant and Robert Stevens, settler, of Dannevirke. The defendants were Mona Dalrymple, Hilda May Stevens, Minnie Howard Green (London), Mary Aleen Stevens, Kate' Ethel Lowe (Wellington), Kenneth McKenzie Stevens (Papatoetoe), Bert Stevens (Otaki), the executor of the will of Duncan Burrell Stevens, and James Petrie Innes and Peter Lockhart Sint, executors of the will of John Laurence Stevens.

The first summons' dealt with William Angus Stevens one of the beneficiaries under the will. The matters the Court was asked to determine were that Wjilliam Angus predeceased the testatqr and died without issue or without having been married and died intestate.

Mr. A. Blair stated that William Angus left New Zealand when he was about 18 years of age and travelled abroad. He disappeared about 1908 or 1909 having last been heard of in America. Diligent inquiries had been made in America and in other parts of the world without success, and Mr. Blair dealt at. length with the efforts made to trace the missing man. His Honour said he was prepared to presume death and made the orders asked.

In regard to the second summons Mr. P. E. Baldwin said that the testator had died in July 1916, his main asset being his share in a block of land. Last year, he said, certain of the beneficiaries brought an action against the trustees, James Hopkins Stevens and Robert Stevens. It was in evidence before His Honour 'that the action was instituted contrai'y to the wishes and without the sanction of the other beneficiaries and the trustees of the wills of such of them as had died.

His Honour: “What was the action?” ,

Mr. Baldwin: “To remove the trustees on the ground of fraud and breach of trust and excessive payments to themselves of commission.”

His Honour: “The case was given in favour of the defendants.”

Mr. Baldwin said the objection was taken that the question of commission could not be gone into because all the parties were not present and it was then arranged that an originating summons should be taken out so that all parties might be represented.

Mr. Treadwell: “Your Honour said that you thought that a question of law was involved and the construction of the will could be sufficiently disposed of on an originating summons. This is it.” Mr. Baldwin said that the charges of fraud and breach of trust were abandoned and the action was dismissed. Decision was reserved.