INTERPRETATION OF WILL

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23810, 2 December 1942, Page 4

INTERPRETATION OF WILL

* DIVISION OF MATSON ESTATE

QUESTIONS ANSWERED

BY COURT

The declaratory judgment sought in respect to the will ot the late Leicester Matson, stock and station agent, ot Christchurch, was given by Mr Justice Northcrott. in the Supreme Court yesterday. After giving judgment his Honour heard an application under the Family Protection Act on behalf of the testators widow, Laura Parry Matson. This application was adjourned until December 15, in order that the trustees and the testator's sons might consider some scheme for the payment of maintenance to the widow out of the business of H. Matson and Company instead of out of the estate.

Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for the plaintiffs and trustees of the estate, Duncan Leslie Rutherford and Herbert Klwyn Booker, Dr, A. L. Maslam for the 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 Kslelle Johnston, and Peegy Grififi. daughters of the testator, and their children, and Mr D. \V. Russell lor the infant children of John Thomas Matson, Allan Leicester Matson, and Leicester Wellesley Matson. The plaintiffs asked for an order determining the following questions arising out 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? (hj) What is the beneficial interest HE 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? Intention of Testator His Honour said he found it difficult to answer the questions submitted. b T o one view was ontiiely consistent with the will as a whole. In the result he found himself compelled to speculate upon the intention of the testator without any confidence that his intention was revealed.

“I do think, however, that the testator had two main purposes before him." added his Honour. "One was an equal division of his residuary estate, and the other was the perpetuation of his business. I do not 'hink the testator intended to depart from the scheme of an equal division as set out in paragraph 8 of the will. At the same time he was very hopeful, indeed he was almost insistent, that his sons .should perpetuate his business. I think that as part of their share under paragraph 8 the sons were intended to take the business, or such of the assets of it as its successful continuance required within the machinery of paragraph 12. "The questions will be answered accordingly, or if they be considered not quite suitable or insufficient upon the view I have stated, I will receive suggestions from counsel ns to an appropriate declaration in accordance with the views I have expressed. In the circumstances it is not necessary to define what assets arc and what arc not part of the business." Payment of Annuity When making the application under the Family Protection Act on behalf of the widow, Dr. Haslam said that by Clause 8 of tire will tiro trustees were directed to pay her an annuity of £SOO a year for life or until her remarriage when they wore to pay her an annuity of £250 a year for five years. By a codicil the sum of £SOO was changed to £4OO. Dr. Haslam said that the plaintiff was married in 1925 when she was 27. In April this year she had to undergo a very serious operation in Wellington, and required special hospital attention; She was now faced in the future with another operation. Her doctor had said that she would be hampered in earning her living in future, while another doctor had expressed the opinion for the trustees that she would be able to resume earning her living after the second operation. Before her marriage she had earned, a livelihood as a manicurist and hairdresser. While the application was pending the plaintiff’s nursing and hospital expenses had been paid by the estate, and the trustees had allowed her £3 a week, which was later increased to £4. Position of Estate Tire trustees now desired to set up an annuity fund to provide an income tor Mrs Matson, continued Dr. Haslam, and the question was what was a fair annual income to allow tire widow of an admittedly wealthy man whose net estate was somewhere in the region of £65.090 after payment of all duties. It was submitted that Mrs Matson should be allowed an annuity of £SOO a year, which at present rates of taxation would yield a net income of £364; that the provision of £250 a year for five years on her remarriage should stand; and that the other beneficiaries should relieve Mrs Matson of the medical and hospital expenses and the succession duties, which totalled approximately £225, Mr Thomas quoted figures showing that there was a surplus of £45 in the income and expenditure account of the estate for 12 months. He said that at the present time the estate was going to be most difficult to handle, and it did appear that for some time Mrs Matson might have to be paid out of capital. Those interested in the estate fully realised their responsibilities and ns soon ns the estate could be made to pay it would be made to pay. Mr Godby and Mr Hensley said that their clients were willing that the plaintiffs .medical expenses should be paid by the estate. Mr Godby suggested that a separate fund be set aside and earmarked to provide whatever annuity the Court might decide, and that the rest of the assets of the estate be exonerated. In adjourning the application his Honour said it seemed to him to he harsh on the daughters that this estate with an extra small income should bo burdened with an annual loss represented in payments to the widow when ns part of the assets of the estate there was a business.