LAWYER’S BEQUESTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 915, 7 March 1930, Page 10

LAWYER’S BEQUESTS

DISPUTE OVER ALLOCATION ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S RIGHTS The Attorney-General is to be given an opportunity to intervene on behalf of the Crown to dispute the Supreme Court’s right to disburse legacies to religious organisations under the will of the late Hon. James Palmer Campbell, M.L.C., formerly a barrister of Auckland. This is the decision of Mr. Justice Smith in a preliminary reserved judgment concerning the allocation of two bequests, which were the subject of recent litigation. The testator granted the legacies in these terms: ‘To the general sustentation fund of the Anglican Church of New Zealand, £1,000,” and “to the home mission fund of the Church of the Province of New Zealand (Anglican) the sum of £500.” Both sums were claimed by the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Auckland, while St. Mark’s Parochial Trust Board also laid claim to the legacy to the general sustentation fund. Dealing with the first legacy, his Honour held there was no fund precisely answering the description contained in the will. Clearly the object of the gift was the sustentation of the Anglican Church of New Zealand. The same applied to the second legacy. There was not, and never had been, such a fund for the whole church The testator’s charitable intention was clear, however, and the gifts must be applied cy pres. In allowing the Attorney-General the opportunity of intervening on behalf ol‘ the Crown to dispose of the gifts, his Honour said if that official did not take action Lin order must be made for an inquiry to settle a scheme of disbursement as nearly as possible in accordance with the testator’s intentions. p His Honour said the ruiids appeared to be diocesan and not parish funds, and the claim of the St. Mark’s Parochial Trust Board appeared to be excluded. The central fund for church extension and home mission work of the Diocese of Auckland seemed clearly entitled to participate. If all the dioceses could agree, upon an apportionment or allocation of the legacies, and the consent of the At-torney-General was obtained to sucji an agreement, he saw no reason why an order of the court should not be made accordingly, without further inquiry. If, on the other hand, no such agreement could be reached, or. if reached, the Attorney-General withheld his consent, an order must be made for an inquiry to settle a scheme and the Attorney-General must have liberty to attend.