SUPREME COURT DECISION

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25206, 10 June 1947, Page 3

SUPREME COURT DECISION

INTERPRETATION OF WILL An interpretation of two clauses in the will of John Baker, a farmer, of Methven, was sought in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr Justice Fleming made an order in terms of the application. The testator died in 1913, and his estate was valued at £27.000. Mr B. J. Drake appeared for the trustees of the estate, Mr K. J. MeMenamin for the personal representatives of Charles Baker and Thomas Baker; Mr L. J. H. Hensley for the children of Charles Baker and of Thomas Baker; Mr J. A. Wicks for the personal representatives of James Baker; and Mr A. W. Brown for the executors of the will of Annie Stone and of Margaret Ellen Gee. Mr Drake said that this originating summons was brought by the trustees of the will for the Court to determine the interpretation of two clauses of the will. The testator, who was not married, left a farm property and directed that three annuities be paid. Subject to these annuities, the balance of the income was to be paid to the testator’s sister. Annie Stone, for her lifetime. Annie Stone died in 1943, and the difficulties had then arisen. A clause in John Baker’s will provided that, after the death of Annie Stone, the trustees divide the residue of the estate among his three brothers; in the event of the death of any of the brothers their children were to divide equally the share to which their father would have been entitled. All three brothers, Thomas, Charles, and James, survived the testator, but died before their sister did. Charles Baker, in his will, gave a life interest in his expected share of his brother's estate to his wife. His wife had died, and his children were entitled to share equally in his estate. The second brother,’ Thomas, died intestate, and his wife predeceased him. He had four children, and they were now entitled to one-quarter share each. The third brother, James, died without issue. In his will he gave three legacies and directed that the balance of his estate be divided equally among his nieces and nephew’s. The testator had one other brother who predeceased him, and left one child, who died before the life tenancy in John Baker’s estate expired. Counsel told the Court that they were all in agreement on the law nn the question. Mr Hensley said that the question was whether the children of the brothers of John Baker took the shares to which their parents would have been entitled, or whether these shares went as directed wills of thelr parents. He submitted that the children should take the shares to which their parents would have been entitled.

His Honour agreed with this view and made an order accordingly. He also made an order for the payment of 30 guineas to each counsel, plus disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.