INTERPRETATION OF WILL

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25550, 19 July 1948, Page 3

INTERPRETATION OF WILL

difficulty over names RESERVED JUDGMENT AT AUCKLAND “The Press” Special Service A . AUCKLAND, July 17. A decision that the “nephew William' referred to in the will of the late Octavius Ridgley, retired farmer, oi Waiuku, is really his nephew, Charles Wilson Ridgley, has been made by Mr Justice Finlay in a reserved judgment issued yesterday. The testator had directed that on the death of ms widow the residue should go to his grand-nephews, namely the sons oi his nephews “Ted, Alf, Allan and Bill.’’ These names the solicitor acting expanded on his own initiative to “Edward. Alfred, Allan and William.” The difficulty arose because there is no person who can properly or appropriately be described as a “nephew William.”

On behalf of a nephew of the testator, Charles Wilson Ridgley, Mr A. K. Turner submitted affidavits to show that he was always known to the family as “Bill.” The preciseness of tne terms “grand-nephews” and “sons of my nephews,” his Honour said, excluded the testator’s brother, William Wilson Ridgley. It was shown that another nephew, Frederick William Joseph Jones, was known in the family and to the testator as “Fred.” His Honour said that had the name “Bill” been used in the will the evidence established beyond all question that Charles Wilson Ridgley would have been clearly indicated as the person intended. If he was not the person designated then there was no one -at all who in any way answered the description. He thought the translation of “Bill” into “William” did not materially prejudice the substantial certainty of the identification. He therefore found that the sons of Charles Wilson Ridgley were among those entitled to share in the estate after the death of the life tenant. The estate was valued at approximately £3OOO.