TRUSTEES APPEAL

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 39, 8 October 1931, Page 3

TRUSTEES APPEAL

(Press Assn.-

SIR G. HUMTER'S WILL NEPHEWS TAKE CASE TO HIGHER COURT FOR REVIEW DAUGHTER PROTECTED

— By Telegraph — Copyright.)

WELLINGTON, Wednes. Hearing of the appeal of Cyril Paul Hunter and Thomas Percy Hunter, trustees of the estate of the late Sir George Hunter, against the judgment of Mr Justice Reed, delivered last April in the Hunter Will Case, was commenced before the Court of Appeal to-day, Lady Hunter and her daughter Elizabeth, are named as respondents. On the bench were the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr Justice Adams and Mr Justice Smith.

The trustees last year brought an action for probate in solemn form of the will of Sir George Hunter dated November 16, 1929, with codicils thereto on April 7 and June 27, 1930, Lady Hunter opposed probate on grounds of want of due execution and testamentory capacity, and counterclaimed that the Court should pronounce against that will and another dated October 12; 1929 and should pronounce for an earlier will dated August 21, 1924, and a codicil thereof of December 15, 1926. After a lengthy hearing, extendi'ng int'ermitijently from November 1, 1930 to February 20, 1931, Mr. Justice Reed gave judgment pronouncing against the two later wills and in favour of the will of August, 1924 and the codicil thereto. By that will testator, after bequeathing certain legacies and annnlties, left all his personal chattels to his wife, together with a nett income of his estate until her re-marriage, reducible to £1500 per annum on her re-marri-age. On Lady Hunter's death or remarriage, the whole of the residuary estate" was left in equal shares for testator's children on marriage. The trustees are now appealing from that judgment. Mr A. Gray, K.C., Mr. II. II. Cornish and Mr Wilson are appearing for trustees, Mr. G. G. Watson and Mr H. J. V. James for Lady Hunter and Mr W. Perry for Elizabeth Hunter. When the case was called, Mr. Perry said that on July 9, Lady Hunter in pursuance of an undertaking given by her in the witness box in the in the Court below, had executed a deed of eovenant whereby she eovenanted, if called upon, to pay to her child between the ages of 19 years and 21 years, one-tenth of the income of the estate, and after she attained the age of 21 years of age, onehalf of the income. As the child was adequately protected under both the wills of 1929 and Lady Hunter had executed this deed from 1924-, the child's interest was fully protected whatever might be the result of the appeal. Accordingly, he asked leave to withdraw from the case, thereby saving expense to the estate. Leave accordingly was given him by the court. Mr Gray, for the appellants, was still opening his case and reviewing portions of the voluminous evidence when the Court adjourned until tcmorrow.