SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 202, 24 August 1904, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

, m I CIVIL SESSIONS. (Before Mr Justice Edwards.) AUCKLAND WILL DISPUTE. The hearing of the will dispute of Sarah Theodore Edmonds against her brothers, Henry Edmonds and Ernest Makepeace Edmonds, was continued yesterday evening. Ernest Edmonds, giving further evidence for the plaintiff's case, said his brother Harry never claimed exclusive possession of the gum business till a quarrel arose recently. Witness and Arthur then seized the fjum to establish their claims to the business as part of their mother's estate. To Mr Campbell: They recognised Henry as the head vi the business, and received Christmas boxes from him. Itwas true that witness left Henry s employ for a period and worked for a Mr Firth, but this was for the Benefit of j the business. Mr Firth was buying gum i from them, and the business made £ 500 out of the arrangement. In further examination it 'was explained that when the partie? gathered at the lawyer's to t-ign over theGrahame street house, the youngest sisfer, Dora, wa.s still, in law, an infant. An order of tiic Supreme Court was therefore neeissary before she could legally convey away auy of her interest in the. estate. Some conversation took place between His Honor and Mr Campbell as to whether the authority of the Supreme Court was obtained after or before the document had been signed. Mr Campbell said a later witness would probably be able to give a definite reply to this question.

Arthur Milsom Edmonds gave evidence of the position of affairs at the different period?, which agreed with toe statements of previous witnesses. He remembered sugg-esting to Harry during their mother's life that her will required altering so as to make the business accrue to the three brother?. Harry replied, "We can trust the girls; we need not bother about it."' Speaking of the debts owing at the, time of the father's death, witness said one creditor t<. whom £500 was due was eventually paid in full by monthly instalments from the. profits of the business. It was , agreed between Harry, Ernest and himself, with their mother's concurrence, (hat they should keep the business going till their nuither's death, when it should become theirs. His right as a partner in the business was not disputed for :i considerable period, but hi* and Ernest's frequeut requests (hat their name- should be added to the title of tho business were iilways put off. On one occasion, just before he was going for v holiday, lie had 14/ to deposit for the firm, i'fe placed £143 14/ to the firm's bunk account, which was Si Henry J s name, and the. remaining

.£4O to his own account, but in the books he entered the vrhole £ ISo 14/ as deposited to the firm's account. He admitted he wrong to make a false entry, but he was quite entitled to appropriate the money, lie told his brother He.nry of the cireuinstauee after his holiday, but it was not true that his brother refused to take him back into the business on that account. His brother wished him to rome back, but he declined unless a proper understanding were come to. TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS. Tnifl morning Albert Edwin Edmonds, one of the three beneficiaries iv the mother"* will, pave evidence. In reply to Mr Martin, the claimants' counsel, he stated thai lie had never heard his mother .say anything about having' given ihc gum business to Henry, but his mother did not often discuss her affairs with them. Speaking of the interview ■it the lawyer's office over the signing over of the Grahnni-stveeL property to Henry, he said the clerk gabbled over something which they were, to sign. Sotnetbing was read about Sarah Theodora being 21. and he and Alice exclaimed that sh-e was under this age. He demanded some explanation.-; about the whole matter, but under Alice's persuasion he finally dropped the objection. He knew nothing about an application at that time at the Supreme Court. He received from Henry £2o of his mother's estate. This was after a discussion with his flisters about the advisability of not rolling the Graham-street property. A I cheque for the £25 was given into his j hand a I his workshop by hi? brother | FTenry. He assumed iir the. time that this was a deposit on the sale of the house. Some years later, after the lawsuit, in December last, he went with Alice to .lacksoii a.nd Russell's and looked at their mother"*) will. Then he went to ask Henry about Dora's share o( the estate, and Henry said there was ibout £2 owing to her. j

To Mr Campbell: He always underitood from his mother that the business was to go to the three boys. He dViied that he gave Henry a receipt for Uip £25. Mr Campbell here showed ■witness a receipt, which he acknowledged to be his, for £20. in which he stated that 'in consideration of the above stated uini I hereby convey my interest in the property to H. EdmoT>ds. — (Sigurd) A. E. Edmonds. August 31st, "07." Witness then admitted that, his recollection was in error over the reSarah Theodore Edmonds, the plaintiff, who described herself ay a music teacher, pave evidence. She remember ed the interview at Jackson and Kussell'p. She remembererl a document containing the words "All being of the age of 21." Alice then said that Dora wa> not "21. She did not understand very clearly at the time what the 'α-ar.-Vifitio-n was about. Out of her mother's estate shp received only £2 in addition to the previous payments of 5,' per weak. When she aske<l for her I share he replied that he would not srive her more tha.n £2 of it ar that Uine. He had given her none y.'tice, nor had 'he given her any statement of how much was due to he^.

To Mr. Martin: On occasions when she was away on holiday* her allowance of .">/ a ■week from Henry was stopped. Frederick Edmonds, a shipwright at Tuakau, was the n«t vUness for tiie plaintiff. After his father's death hi , attended a meeting with his brothers and proposed that the name "Edmonds Biw." should be put up over his mother's business. FmaJ.'y, however, it was agreed to cal] it "Henry Edmonds,' but be did knov why. William Gulliver, formerly city valuer at Auckland. .<2 ; 1 he- valued the Graham-street property in 1597 at £36 annual value, eqiriv,i'etrt to not less than .£720 capita? value. This concluded the ease for the plaintiff. Mr Campbell, opening the defendant's ease, said he would submit the evidence of Henry Edmonds, and two of the elder sisters o-f the I*mily. They -rrtmld show that st the time of the father's death the mother wished the debts on the

business to be w : ped off, and gave' Henry the insurance money and the Brown-street property for this purpose. The business was then valueless. Henry then started business on his own account,' and during his mother's ] life supported the family as his father had done. The business was always recognised a» his, and all the acts done in connection with the business were consistent with this theory. In regard to the sale of the Graham-street V property, while the mode of effecting it was objectionable, the object of the transaction was entirely bona fide. No injury was done to the plaintiff, and beyond the valuation of Mr Gulliver, there was no evidence that the defendant Henry (as a trustee) did not give reasonable value for the property, which w.vs all that the law required. Mrs Mary Selina, Graham, one of the sisters, said her late mother was not in the habit of discussiug her affairs openly with the family, but she had conversation:? about, them with Henry, and witness always understood that she gave him the business. Her mother often ! said thau when she died she would have nothing. Witness never heard the other brothers spoken of as partners. Mrs. Graham, continuing her evidence, said she tried unsuccessfully to dissuade Mr. and Mrs. Henry from going to live with thy others at Graham street, thinking the arrangement would not be satisfactory. When the sale of the property was under consideration the documents were read over by the lawyer's clerk. To Mr. Martin: She believed her mother's reason for giving Henry the business was because she trusted him more than she trusted the others. She gave him the insurance money also to put into the business. She knew no reason why her mother should denude herself of practically all her money and property except that she trusted Henry, and knew '.ie would look after the others and find the-:n situations. She sometimes said when times were bad that she wondered how Henry kept them all. Henry took ' the active part in winding up her ' mother"? estate. Witness was also an " executrix, but she could not remember any particular occasion o.i which Henry '. consulted her. although he sometimes told hre what he was arranging to do. (Proceeding.) IN CHAMBERS. 1 His Honor granted probate ill the es- ; tates of the late Robert. Fuxpitch Carter (Mr Devore). John Tozer Came and • Charles King (Mr Newton), and renrwed probate in the estate of the late Thomas Leach (Mr Graham).