SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27051, 28 May 1953, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE

TRUSTEE’S SYSTEM APPROVED

Giving his reserved decision in the ] Supreme Court yesterday on the distribution of the estate of William Henderson, a retired company manager, among his grandchildren, Mr Justice Northcroft held that the proportior ite method, proposed by the trustee, was to be adopted. The case was heard on April 23 when Mr E. E. England appeared for the New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd., trustee of the estate; Mr T. A. Gresson for the children of a deceased son of the testator; Mr S. A. Wiren, of Wellington, for a number of older grandchildren of the testator: and Mr E. C. Champion for a number of younger grandchildren. The estate consisted largely of big holdings of good shares and by the testator’s will they were divided into six funds, one for jeach of the life tenants. In 1936 the first fund became divisible among the 15 grandchildren who were the residuary beneficiaries. This fund was divided in cash in some cases and in shares in others. In 1950 another life tenant died and another fund became divisible among the grandchildren. The trustee was concerned because the value of the shares had gone up considerably though the value of money had decreased. The Court was asked whether the distribution among the grandchildren should be in money value or in a proportion of the assets.

His Honour said yesterday that the trustee’s scheme of distribution by proportions as and when portions had become and would become available seemed to be in strict conformity with the testator’s direction for equality. Furthermore, the distributions and appropriations made by this process in 1936 occurred at a time when two of the H. C. Henderson grandchildren and eight of the other grandchildren were adult and were made with their knowledge and approval. If the process then applied were thought to be at fault the trustee should have been informed and the opinion of the Court obtained then.

“As it was put to me at the hearing the problem here is more one of administration than of construction. I

think the policy of administration pursued and intended to be continued by the trustee is one authorised by the will and is convenient and not unjust,” his Honour said.

LABOURER ADJUDGED BANKRUPT

On the petition of Graeme Sherborn Erockett, a law clerk 4 (Mr C. B. McLachlan), an order was made By Mr Justice Northcroft, in the» Supreme Court yesterday, adjudging Maurice Meikle, also known as Paul George Maurice, a labourer, bankrupt.. Brockett, in evidence, said he had obtained judgment in the Magistrate’s Court against Meikle for £72 Ils and the money had not been paid nor had he been given any security for it.

REHEARING OF CASE ADJOURNED

An appeal, by way of rehearing, by George Sydney James Cullen, a boot repairer (Mr P. H. T. Alpers), against a decision of Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., making a separation maintenance order in favour of Willow Graham Cullen, the appellant’s wife (Mr R. Twyneham), was adjourned sine die by Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mrs Cullen alleged persistent cruelty by her husband.

DECREES NISI GRANTED

A decree nisi, on the grounds stated, was granted the petitioner in each of the following undefended petitions for divorce heard before Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday: Desertion.—Doris Irene Smart (Mr D. W. Russell) v. Frederick Charles Smart; Olwin Frances Miller (Dr. A. L. Haslam) v. John William Miller (Mr J. R. Woodward).

Adultery.—Thomas Groves (Mr J. G. Leggat) v. Margaret Ellen Groves and William Clarke, named as co-respond-ent; Garry De Maus Hammond (Mr H. M. S. Dawson) v. Audrey Hazel Hammond and Adrian Verion McEwen named as co-respondent. Separation.—Monica Doreen Jarman (Mr J. ‘B. Corbett) v. John Edward Jarman; Maurice Vernon Thomas (Mr E. S. Bowie) v. Vera May Gordon Thomas.