ESTATE TOPPING SIX FIGURES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 771, 21 March 1910, Page 11

ESTATE TOPPING SIX FIGURES.

AND THE WILL. The case of Alfred John. Lichfield and others versus Charles Stanley Walker' and others, an originating summons under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 1908,. was argued before the Chief Justice,. Sir. Robert Stout, in the Supremo Court on Saturday.

The Court: was asked to decide questions arising out of the construction of the will of Thomas Carter, sheepfarmer, of Marlborough, who died on February 27, 1900,' leaving real and personal estate now valued at over £149,000. His will provided that, after making provision for his wife and adopted daughter, the residue of. the income iy a ® to be divided among the grandchildren of deceased's half-bro-ther and half-sister. -These grandchildren were in three classes: (1) Those born in the testator's lifetime and still alive; (2) those born iri tho testator's lifetime, and-now dead; and (3) those born since the "death of" tlio" testator. The point for the" ruling of the Court was whether the representatives of deceased's graridobildren wore entitled to a share of teh income, and whether tlio grandchildren born since his death were entitled to a share. •

Mr. A. Blair appeared for.the trustees under" the will, Lichfield and others; Mr. P. M'Callum (of Blenheim) for the grandchildren comprised in the' first class; Mr. J. L. Stout for the'representative of those comprised ■in the second ' class; and Mr. T..-F. Martin, for the : grandchildren borrr since ' the testator's -death; these comprising'- the' third class. ."•' :- V;, . ; •';.■_• - His'Honour'-hoard the.-argument of counsel'and reserved his decision. . A MINING TRAMWAY. The hearing of argument in the case Seaford Coal Company and E. G. I'ilchcr v.'John Shaw and G. B. Watson was concluded before his Honour Mr. Justicc ( Williams, sitting in Banco. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the plaintiff,' Mr. D. 'M.''JVindlay for the .defendant Shaw, and, Mr. Magiiinity 'for'-the defendant AVats6n. The case came for-, ward as a-motion for specific performance of agreement, and was concerned' Chiefly .with the plaintiffs' claim to the right to construct a across.land which' Shaw had sold "to • Watson'.- '"■ ■Judgment was reserved." >-''-' '•'■'■;