Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

Tuesday, August 24. IN DIVORCE. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) THOMAS V. THOMAS. This was a wife's petition for divorce on the ground- of desertion, the petitioner being Susanne Helen Thomas and the respondent William James Thomas, formerly of Dunedin, mariner. ' i.¥ r j \ m C V Hanlon > f °J* the petitioner, stated that the parties were married at the office of the registrar at Dunedin on March I 12, 1888, and after their marriage they lived m York place until the month of June, 1889. The respondent, who was then ( SJPPkyed " a steward on the steamer 1 Mararoa, telegraphed to his wife, saying 1 that he had been transferred to the Takapuna, a boat trading in the north. After the Mararoai had passed through Dunedin to the Bluff on her way to Melbourne the ' petitioner received a letter from her hus- ( band, dated the Bluff, stating that he had gone on in the Mararoa, and would communicate with her from Melbourne. The telegram was evidently sent for the purpose of letting him pass through Dunedin without being observed by his wife He never communieated^-with: * hear from - Melbourne; and Bhe, heard nothing of him for years. The petitioner eonaeqtiently had to go back to her occupation as a stewardess m the Union Company's service, in order to earn her livelihood and that of her only child, who was now" grown up. She had followed that occupation up to the -present. Two or three years ago' she learned that her husband" was a derelict in Sydney. He had gone to the dogs with drins, and was simply a loafer about the wharves there. ! Evidence was given by the petitioner and Andrew Clark (her brother). I • His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be- ' come absolute in three months. IN CHAMBERS. Ivan Nelson and George J. Robertson v. W. S. Waterstou. — Summons by the de- ! fendant for security for costsr (Mr Wpod- ! house). — This summons refers back to the barque Stefano Razeto, now renamed the British Yeoman. Plaintiffs paid £1782 in connection with this -matter, and now claim , to recover that sum. — Defendant asked for J costs, because the plaintiffs Preside in Sydney. — His Honor ordered that security to the extent of £375 be given. In re Augustus Henry Aldborough Strat-ford-Henniker (deceased) and the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company. — Argument on an originating summons. — Mr William C. MacGregor appeared for A. B. H. Stratford-Henniker, the only son of deceased ; Mr Woodhouse for the company ; and Mr Brent for the widow, Mrs Henniker, whom the judge had ordered to be sewed with a summons. — Mr MacGregor opened the case, and after short argument his' Honor decided as follows :— r(l) That plaintiff had a vested interest in the sum of- £12,000 bequeathed to him in trust by will, liable to be. divested in the event of his death before the age 6£ 30 years and in the absence of appointment. (2) That plaintiff could now- appoint the said funds by deed. (3) That plaintiff could now charge his estate and interest in the said/ funds by mortgage. (4) That the costs of the parties be taxed by the registrar, and paid out of the funds in question. 1 The Public Trustee v. Aitcheson and Others. — Mr Woodhouse, who appeared for plaintiff, explained that this was a case to prove a will. There were practically three defendants. Robert Aitcheson, who really supported the widow, was the legatee under the will. Samuel Aitcheson represented himself and other defendants, and Mrs I Gower was the representative of certain ' other defendants. She had put- in no j statement of defence. Samuel Aitcheson filed a defence, but had since withdrawn j it. Learned counsel had filed an affidavit setting out that the only surviving attesting witness was unable to attend the court, and he asked for an order to take her evidence at Heriot. The case could be adjourned until after his Honor returned from Invercargill, and in the meantime the formal evidence could be taken by the legistrar. — An order was made accordingly. Wednesday, August 25. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) IKTEBPRETATION OF A WILL. Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company (Ltd.) v. H. W. Bayley and others. This was an originating summons taken out by the executors- of the will of the late Mrs Sophia Louisa Smith to ascertain whether a legacy of shares given to H. W. Bayley, of Hobart, sharebroker, under her will was a valid bequest, or whether the legacy has been adeemed. The bequest was in these words: '♦ All such portion of my personality as consists at the present time of shares in various banking and mining and other companies, and now standing in such companies in the ■ name of Henry William Bayley, of Hobart, and in respect of which I hold his declaration of trust. I bequeath to the said Henry William Bayley in consideration of the great attention he has for years past bestowed upon the management and conduct of my affairs." This will was dated May 1, 1884, and at the time of Mrs Smith's death, in 1907, none of the shares any longer existed. But ever since the date of the will Mr Bayley had been buying and selling shares in his own name on behalf of Mrs Smith, and the question was whether Mrs Smith intended that whatever shares should be standing in his name at the date of her death should belong to Mr Bayley, or only those shares which were so standing at the date she made her will, none of which remained. It appeared that the shares standing in Mr Baylev's name at the date of the will were valued at £1756 Is 6d, but at the date of Mrs Smith's death the shares then in Mr Bayley's name were valued at over £4000. Mr Woodhouse appeared for the Trustees Company, Mr Ho3king, K.C. (with him Mr White), "for certain beneficiaries, Mr J. A. Cook for tbe next-of-kin, and Mr Solomon, K.C. (with him Mr Downie Stewart), for Mr Bayley. It was contended, on behalf of Mr Baylev, (hat what was given to him was not specific shares, but that portion of Mrs Smith's estate for the time being represented by shares. That from the wording of tbe bequest it was evident she contemplated that the shares might alter before her death to any extent. Had she intended merely to give the shares she would have said so, but she gave portion of her estate and identified it as represented by shares, and as being covered by a declaration of trust. The legacy was, therefore, a specific legacy of a generic class, and might increase or diminish before her death, and the will was worded so as to provide for this. If the bequest was not specific, covering what existed at the time of her death, then, in the alternative, it was a demon- , strati ve legacy, -\hich should be taken to

be of the value of the shares alf the tin*r her will was made. On behalf of the other beneficiaries ana next-of-kin, it was argued that this was a specific legacy of certain shares which no longer existed, and that Mr Bayley therefore got nothing. Numerous oases were cited to show that this was a case of aderaption, and that Mrs Smith had not provided for a possible change of investment. His Honor reserved his decision.

j Fbidat, Atottst 27. (Before his Honor Mr Justice 'Williams.) Probate was granted in the following deceased persons' estates:— Ann Davidson* 1 Mary Sutcliffe, and John Smith. I Letters of administration were granted in tbe estates of Alexander Mime, deceased, ' and John M'Kenzie. I lie Mary Crossan, deceased. — Petition for ! leavo to sell (Mr Moore). — Order in terms- ' of prayer. i Re Mary Jane Cook, deceased.— Motion > for remuneration to executors (Mr Calv6rt). j —Referred to Registrar. i Re David Lawrence Black, deceased* j (Mr* John MaoGwsgor).— Petition for leaveto sell. — Order in terms of prayer. t Simpson t_ Cassefe-—^ Motion ior writ of, ! Khandamos to produce minute* of » meet* !■ ing. Summons to eefc aside the motion. Mi John MaeGsegor appeared in support y of the summons, and Mr W. L. Moore, instructed by Mr Aoderaoa, solicitor/, Birertom, to oppose the summons, tiie tatter mentioning that the motion was for )£» 31sfc inst., ait XnvercarßJfl. Mr Mfcore also stated, that Mr Simpson wisfcea to see & minute book, and the county clerk; Riverton, had refused to let ham see it. Then Mr Andersoa applied to the court to compel Mr Caesels to let Mr Simpson ccc tilebook. Defendant had issued a summons to strike out the motion. Defenda-rafc was ' apparently now willing to let plaintiff see the minute book, so that the matter should be easily adjusted in Invercargill. It wa» now & question of costs. His Honor at first did not see that Mr Moore's client should aft costs, and' said there was a fairly fatal objection to tl4« motion. He did not see how Mr Moore'a client could expect to get coste. Finally, his Honor made an. order in terms of the summons; coats two gtiineAS IS BANKRUPTCY. MOTIONS FOB DISCHABGE. ~ Re John Jacob Eckhoff, of Dunedin, advertising agent.— Mr Irwin> on behalf of bankrupt, asked thai the matter might be allowed to stand over until next Bankruptcy sitting. This" was by arrangement with the Assignee.— The application was granted. .' Re John Edward Thompson, of Alexandra Sou/th, miner. — Mr Hewitt, instructed by Mr Bodkin, appeared for bankrupt, and said there was no opposition to the order I being made.— Order of discharge accordirojriy. I Re Frank Armstrong, a bankrupt, an. order was made for the taxation of peti- ■ , tioning creditors' costs. ) His HcSnor fixed "next sitting in Bankruptcy for November 5. *

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW19090901.2.129

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Otago Witness, Issue 2894, 1 September 1909, Page 30

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,626

SUPREME COURT. Otago Witness, Issue 2894, 1 September 1909, Page 30

SUPREME COURT. Otago Witness, Issue 2894, 1 September 1909, Page 30

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert