SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14524, 28 November 1912, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO.

(Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston.) THOMSON v. THOMSON. This was aa originating summons in this matter of the estate ot Jano Thomson, lato of Malkett, between David Thomson, of Halfcett ami John Thomson, of the samo place. The applicant asked that an order under the Family Protection Act, 1903, making such provision for him as the Court thought fit should be made out of the esta»* of the deceased, and for such further or other orders as the Court should think just and proper upon the ground that the said Jane Thomson left a will without making adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the said David Thomson. Air Holdship appeared for plaintiff, and Mr T. W. Stringer, X.C.. and Mr Vincent for two of the beneficiaries. Mr Holdship stated that under the will £600 was left to near relatives, £150 left to the Presbyterian Church and the residue £269 to John Thomson, the brotr-ei-in-law of deceasea. John Thomson renounced his share in tho property to David Thomson. David Thomson had absolutely no property except a block of land at Halkeft consisting of 20 acres and this, two or three year-s ago. was valuea Dy the Governni3nt at £227. It was a sort of wasto block not used except that there was a vvhare .on it. Outside of this property David Thomson had nothing. Ho was 60 years of age. The I executor wished the Court" to make sonio' provision for him. John Thomson gave evidence on the ; above , lines. He considered David Thomson's property would fetch about 8s per aero if let. David Thomson said he had let hia farm on a half-share basis and had ono year obtained 25s per acre on nine and a half acres. Ho appeared unable to explain to the Court why he could not keep a cow and do other work sinco his wife had died. Mr Hoktehip said that his friends, Mr Vincent and Mr Stringer had practically arrived at au equitable arrangement to reduce the legacies equitably in order to buy an annuity for the old man for the rest of his life. His Honour - said that if David Thomson obtained an annuity, he would have to give up his land. In most parts of the world 20 acres and a house wero sufficient to live on. In reply to his Honour, Mr Holdship suggested an annuity of £26 per per year. John Thomson was then asked if ho wished to renounce his legacy or not, he being informed that if he did not renounco tho legacy ho might have' to support his brother. Thomson first said ho would renounce the legacy * and then that he would not, and apparently appeared not to know what he meant. His Honour accordingly adjourned the caso in order that John Thomson might make up his mind what to do. McCORMICK v. McCORMICK. This was an originating summons in the matter of the estate of William McCormick, late of Lakeside, iarraer, deceased, between Sarah McCormick and Rachel Cook, plaintiffs, and Elizabeth McCormick and William John McCormick, the trustees and executors of the will of tho said William McCormick. The applicants applied for an order under the Family Protection Act, 1908, making provision for them out of the estate of tho said William McCormick, and for such further or other order as tho Court might think just and proper, upon tho ground that the said McCormick left a will without making adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the plaintiffs or either of them. Mr T. W. Stringer, X.-C, appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr Loughnan for the defendants, and Mr Fryer for tho fuardian, ad litem, of Susan and Lily IcCormick, two of the infant beneficiaries under tho will. , Mr Stringer said the testator had two daughters hy his first wife; Rachel Cook and Sarah McCormiek. He left them £20 and £30 respectively. He married again in 1885. The eldest girl, who was now thirty-two years of age, worked on the farm till after the second marriage. The other girl had really been living with her grandmother practically from the time of her birth. , His Honour: Is there any allegation of ill-health ? Mr Stringer: No. Mr Stinger sa ia <hat under Alla-dyce v. Allardyce, in which there were much more favourable circumstances, a man was bound to provide for his daughters who, perhaps if left on their o#n- resources would be practically destitute In answer to his Honour, Mr Stringer £8000 WaS roughl > *'°* th Mr Loughnan said the affidavits showed that the estate was really duo to w t eX n ert r? S °- f , the ts?totor. his second "ire, and family. When no married 3?uiht?r nf+L d " ot^ sti "gHish the elder Sttlir 11 ? firstmarriage from her' * i atl i er - The «***> was ™JTi? ° ne ° f ,a e nd ' an £ there we ™ no I present means of providing funds for the maintenance- of these two daughters except from the income of the estate. The charges upon the estate amounted to £fioo per year. The value ol the land as sworn to was £13 250 Assuming that it was being made to pay the interest from that at 5 per cent, per annum, tho income would amount to £660 per year. The will provided for the maintenance of the infant children whilst they were under age. After they came of age they ceased to obtain maintenance out of the estate, but obtained interest on their legacies. With regard to the eldest daughter, if she had a legacy she would bo getting interest. Mr Loughnan suggested that she be put on the same plane as the daughters of the second marriage, viz., that she have a legacy in remainder oil her stepmother's death and obtain interest at present on same up to the time" of her stepmother's death With regard to the married daughter, Mr Loughnan contended that she did not show such lack of proper maintenance as would justify his Honour in ordering* provision to be made for her. He suggested that Sarah McCormick be given a legacy of £500 on the terms he had mentioned.

Mr Stringer accepted Mr Loughnan's proposal in regard to tho elder daughter, but he submitted that the second daughter was entitled to the same eon-.si.-.ration. Sho had a family of five children, tho eldest of whom was only eight years of age, and he (Mr Stringer) thought she came under the ruling in Allardyce v. Allardyce. being a woman with a" family and with a husband in precarious circumstances. His Honour said that when a daughter married, the responsibility for her support was taken off tho parents and vested in the husband. His Honour made an order for £500 11 bo paid to Sarah McCormick and £200 to Rachel C. Cook. He considered it would be more satisfactory to nay Mrs Cook's amount to her in cash. Coupjel promised to see if this could bo done, and to draw up-an order for his Honour's perusal. HICKMOTT v. KESTEVES. This was an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate. A certain person gave security over a horse to :e----spondent, and the statement of claim alleged that after the security had been given, the horse was sold to Hickmott. The security was not registered, and it was admitted that Hickmott, in taking possession of the horse, was an innocent purchaser without knowledge of respondent's security. The Magistrate had. held that ho was not entitled to the horse, but appellant contended that he was,

•as he was an innefcent purchaser without notice. ' ' Mr E. T. Harper appeared for appellant and Mr Leathern for fespondent. Mr; Harper said the Magistrate had based his decision on the judgment of Mr Justice Cooper in Andrews v. Fan Tv, but he (Mr Harper) held that the present case did not come within tho meaning of that case. Mr Leathern held that the case did come under the case of Andrews v. Fan Tu. Judgment was reserved. CROZIER v. MYERS. This was an appeal from the decision 'of the Magistrate in an affiliation case. Mr Cassidy appeared for appellant, and Mr E. T. Harper for respondent. After hearing evidence his Honour upheld the appeal with costs-