NOT A VALID BEQUEST

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21120, 22 March 1934, Page 7

NOT A VALID BEQUEST

KSTATK TO UK RETURNED IM lIIU'RKTATION (IF Wir.l, | Because some of the objects set out in a will, which came before the Supreme Court for a ruling yesterday, v. ere not cnaritablo the whole sift mu ! ' fail, his Honour Mr Justice Johnston said in giviti!', his judgment. The estate, which had been handedj over as instructed by the testatrix,! would have to be returned to the i I ru. tees under the will. The r.'i'e came before the court as an originating summons, the plaintiffs beinu th• ■ Church Properly Trustees, j who had received the roi-idiiary estate j of Ada Taylor, who died in C'hristrhureh in *lOl4. The trustees under the will were cited defendants but slaiid be'oio the hearing that they would consent to the decision of the) court I Mr A. C. Cottrell appeared for the j Chui'ch Property Trustees. Mr I). \V. | Puisied for the trustees under the will (.Messrs J. 11. Senger and W. C. Col- i linsi. and Mr .1. U. Godfrey for the ne\t of km. !\lr Cottrell said that the originating] had been brought to deter-i mine what was to become of £2709 left under the will of Ada Taylor, spinster, who died in Christchureh m l',H4. Under a will made in 1903 the testatrix lclt her property to her relatives in New Zealand during their lives the residue to go to the Church Property Trustees upon trust for such charitable, benevolent, deserving cr laudable ob ieels as the trustees should think lit. Py a eodieil made in 191(1 testatrix directed lhat the income Irom the residuary estate should he spent m the Ann,-it educational district only. The question tor 'lie court to determine was whether the bequest was a good charitable one. The mallei' had been considered settled. Mr Cornell said, because the relatives o| testatrix had all died without leaving issue and the residuary estate had been handed over to the Church Property Trustees. However, when they asked their solicitor lo say how the income of the estate could he spent, he had advised them to get the court to determine whether the bequest was a uood charitable one or not. The taeis of the ca-e. as outlined by Mi' Cottrell, were set out in an athdav it tiled b.v l,e-he William Itroadhead. church steward lor the plaintiff body. Alter hearing legal aiguiuenl lirllonour -aid that he was salislied that the "' l m' was similar that of Brown v. Knowies and the arguments set (.ml in the I.aw Peports on lhat case would apply. The only doubt he had wa • whetbt r the Attorney-General should have been joined, and he requested counsel tor plaintiffs to send him copies of the papers. If some of the ebjrcts of a testator's bounty were charitable and some were not the whole gift tailed because there was no means of determining how the bequest was to be distributed between the legal and illegal objects. Judgment was that the bequest of the residuary estate was trot a Rood and valid one and the property was to be relumed to the trustees under the will