POWER TO REVIEW.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 85, 11 April 1933, Page 3

POWER TO REVIEW.

WILL CASE APPEAL.

ESTATE OF LATE W. B. RHODES.

CI.AIM ON BEHALF OF INFANT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Judges of the first and second divisions of the Court of Appeal sat together yesterday and again to-day to hear an appeal involving the estate of the late Hon. William Barnard Rhodes. The Court is asked to determine whether the tying-up of Mr. Rhodes' estate, under a will made in 1878, vested property in estate tail in the late Captain W. B. R. Rhodes Moorhouse, V.C., who was killed, in action in April, 1915, and consequently which at his death became vested in his only son, W. H. Rhodes Moorhouse, an infant, born in March, 1914.

The property concerned is known as Highland Park and Heaton Park estates, the greater part of the former and the whole of the latter having been sold. Authority to effect these sales was given by the Rhodes Trust Act, 1901. The Court of Appeal at the previous hearing last year decided that the interests of Captain Rhodes Moorhouse failed because he died before his mother. In the present hearing it is argued that Captain Rhodes Moorhouse's interest was vested in him, and that what is known as Shelley's case has no application. Should the Court decide in favour of plaintiffs, the Rhodes trustees, property valued at about £200,000 will be vested in the infant son of the late Captain Rhodes Moorhouse, but should the Court decide in favour of the other side, a number of persons will share the estate according to law of succession. Seven counsel are engaged. This morning Mr. Hadfield concluded argument for the trustees of the will of the late Hon. W. B. Rhodes (Messrs. W. Barton, O. S. Watkins and G. F. Pearce).

The Solicitor-Ceneral, Mr. A. Fair, K.C., asked leave to appear on the ground that the Crown, from the point of view of certain duties, was interested in the decision. He submitted that the main question as to whether or not the estate tail had vested in Captain Moorhouse had been decided by the Court of Appeal in the affirmative previously in an action arising out of this estate. He submitted that the Court now sitting as two divisions had no power to overrule on this point the decision of a single division given previously; or, alternatively, if it were considered that such power did exist, then the power of review could be exercised only in special circumstances which did not exist in this case. At the conclusion of the argument of the Solicitor-General, addresses on behalf of other interests in the estate were made by Mr. James and Mr. Levi. (Proceeding.)