SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13910, 8 December 1910, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

IX BANCO.

(Before his Honour 31r Justice Sim.)

A WILL CASE.

An originating summons, John Hentlron (U'-awa) and James Hendron I (V\ 'uimate' against Catherine itendroii ' (.Chrislchurch; a.ud Francis Patrick i Hendron (Auckland), was board. Mr Longhnan appeared for the plaintitfs, -Mr Jiric lluroer for the defendant, €a;luM'ino lientiron, and Mr tloban. for the defendant, Francis Patrick Hendron. This was a case brought by trustees for the interpretation of a will. lh° testator, th- husband of tho female defendant, left to his wife "the cottage and land .opposite to the house in which wo have- been recently living-" When tho will was mado there was ono cottag? on a section opposite tho house in which the testator and his wife wore living. After the will was made, another cottage was erected at the rear of the cottage opposite, and tho question was ~'hcthor the second cottage and the land on which it was situated were included in tho bequest to tho wife. Mr Hoban, on behalf of Francis Patrick Hondron, contended that the bequest did uoi- include the second cottage and the land oh which it was situated. There had always been a fenco between the two sections, separating tho first i-'.tago from the land on which the second cottage was built. Tho will did not.say that tho wife was to have two cottages and i\.o pieces of land. Mr Harper said that tho land was bought in the sanio transaction, and was contained in the one certificate of ! title. The Court had to go back to the date of the will to see what was included in the description .given by tho word "opposite." He submitted that the mention of tho testator, that the whole of the property should pass to iiis wife, was expressed in the words of th** bequest. His Honour said that he did not entertain any doubt about the matter. It seemed to him that the effect of tho will was to give the wife an estate for life.in the whole of tho land opposite th*- homo in vliich the testator and his wife, wore living. Tho words used by th? testator were "the land opposite,' and unless there was something in the context to cut down the word "land," tho effect of these words was to give the widow an estate for life in;the whole of tho land opposite, and not only part of tho land. The only doubt was caused by tho introduction of the words "my cottage,'"* but th«t difficulty was at oiiro disposed of when it waa known that at tho time tho testator mado his will thero was only ono cottage on the "ieco of land. If there had been two cottages, and the testator used tho expression "my cottage and land opposite,", thero might hp© been something to he naid for the view contended for by Mr Hoban » client. His Honour held that the widow wab entitled to an estate for life- m all the land and the two cottages. AN ADMINISTRATION MATTER. Emma Knight and Amy Dixon ap plied for an order .directing ..Wilfred, Bndger to surroly accounts in the estate of the lot-- Mark Dixen. Mr Leathern appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr ■Ts-a'rd for the defendant. After hearing Mr I/eathem, his Honour dismissed the' summons, en the ground that the plaintiffs, not being beneficiaries, had no power to call for accounts. Costs wero allowed against them, £5 5s and disbursements.