BRIDGE v. FOREMAN.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4423, 24 May 1875, Page 2

BRIDGE v. FOREMAN.

TO THE EDITOR. sir,— I am sorry to trouble you with a correction of the report of the above case, decided in the Court c APpeaf last week, and appearing in your issue of a report which, on the whole, considering urn claims upon your space, cannot be considered as giving other than a fair idea of the case. Your reporter gives an interpolation from the Bench that a certain case quoted by me was strongly in point against the proposition thereby sought to bo supported ; the doctrine being that express words were necessary to authorise the carrying on of a testator’s trade, such as that of fanning. The extract given by yOU ,S rk ““ v * ■Bbtdk, 11 heaven’s Reports, 2SO) would doubtless support the interpolation, and go far to destroy the proposition immediately before stated in your report. But there is an important omission (apparently an inadvertent one, for other words seem to be wanting) from the quotation, the presence of which would strengthen the proposition and weaken the interpolation as it appears in your report. The extract, as relied on, went beyond the mere authority of trustees to cany on a trade, and enunciated that they are not at liberty “to permit" a trade to be earned on without the most distinct and positive authority, I draw your attention to this matter as tending to set right what, by reason of its application to wills, may have a more general interest than mere differences upon abstract points of law.—l am, &c., George Hutchison. May 22. .