SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23809, 1 December 1942, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

♦ INTERPRETATION OF WILL SOUGHT In the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Northcroft, yesterday, a declaratory judgment was sought in the will of Leicester Matson, deceased, between Duncan Leslie Rutherford and Herbert Elwyn Booker and Laura Parry Matson, of Wellington. and others. Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for the plaintiffs and trustees of the will of the deceased. Dr. A. L. Haslam for Laura Parry Matson, widow, Mr M. H. Godby for John Thomas Matson, Allan Leicester Matson, and Leicester Wellesley Matson, Mr L. J. Hensley for Valmai Marion Parkinson, Rhona Estelle Johnston, and, Peggy Grigg, and their children, and Mr D. W. Russell for the infant children of John Thomas Matson, Allan Leicester and Leicester Wellesley Matson. An application was made by the plaintiffs as trustees, for an order determining the following questions arising out of the interpretation of the will:—(a) What is the meaning of the words “the business of H. Matson and Company” as used in Clause 12 of the said will? (b) What is the beneficial interest (if any) conferred upon the defendants, John Thomas Matson, Allan Leicester Matson, and Leicester Wellesley Matson, their wives and children of Clause 12? (c) Is any benefit taken by the said John Thomas Matson, Allan Leicester Matson, and Leicester Wellesley Matson under the said Clause 12 in addition to, or is it part of, their share of residue under clause 8 of the said will?” Mr Thomas, in outlining the contents of the will, said two questions to be decided were; (1) What is the meaning of the “business of H. Matson and Company? (2) what was the beneficial interest, if any. given to the sons? Did the’ testator intend to hand the business over to the sons to be run by them, or did he intend that they should carry on the business as part of the estate, and under the direction of the trustees? Mr Godby said the welfare of H. Matson and Company seemed to be the dominant idea in the framing of the will, and the sons had been authorised to carry on the business. He contended (1) that testator gave the business to his sons subject to certain restrictions, a design for protection of the business and which gave to sons, wives, and children interest in certain contingencies. (2) That testator regarded the business of H. Matson and Company as separate from his estate and in addition gave to his sons the business and also gave them an equal share in the estate. (3) That the business of H. Matson and Company comprises assets and liabilities shown in the balance-sheet. The testator, continued Mr Godby, said the sons could do what they liked with the rest of the estate, but elaborate provision had been made for the protection of the business. The estate was given to trustees to divide equally. He gave the business to the sons with full authority to wind it up. Mr Hensley said by the very wording of the will the business must be regarded as part of the residue. The testator’s dominant intention was to ensure the carrying on of the business of H. Matson and Company rather than to make a bequest to his sons The whole tenor of the will showed live desire of the testator that the busine=s should be carried on and only conferred the right for the sons to carry on under a well-known business name. His Honour said he hoped to give his decision to-day at 2.15 p.m., after which a further action under the Family Protection Act will be heard. In this case the widow Laura Parry Matson, of Welling--1(10. will he the plainijff and the other parties the defendants.