LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1084, 24 March 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. THE LONG-DRAWN TUCKWELL CASE. ONE LITTLE STEP. MORE. The familiar Tuckwell will case was 011 again in the Supreme Court yesterday, when an application was made to Mr. Justice Cooper for letters of administration in the estate. Mr. Machell appeared for the brothers and sisters of. ueorge Tuckwell, Mr. M'Donald for the-Public Trustee, and Mr. .Blair for. Gillespie, one of. the witnesses. Mr. Blair raised' a preliminary point as lo Uille'spie's costs. His Honour replied that Gillespie had come into court really to clear his own character, and at the invitation of the Court. If the Court, granted administration to the Public Trustee, the latter \vould he entitled to pay all proper claims against the fund, and it' would then be proper to make application . for the payment of Gillespie's costs. At present the Court had no jurisdiction over the fund. Mr. Blair thought that his application could be rightly granted. Gillespio had really been invited into the proceedings, and had been of material assistance to the Court. It would be a great hardship if he was not indemnified for his costs, after going to all the trouble which he had to collect information and put it before. the Court. If for no other reason, his costs should bo allowed bccauso of the unjustifiable allegations made against him. -Mr. M'Donald opposed the application, pointing out that the costs totalled .£47 55., of which 25 guineas was for counsel's attendance. He argued that Gillespie was never in-Court in any. capacity other than that of a witness.. If every witness who came into court for his own purposes, as Gillespie did, wore to bo entitled to costs, a very curious state of affairs would result. -, Mr. Machell (representing the Tuckwells' next of . kin) objected to the payment of a certain portion of the costs asked.for. :His Honour remarked that he had no power at present to make the order asked. He even doubted whether lie • would bn able to make an order on any subsequent application. At the same time leave would be given to renew the application later. Mr. 'Machell then moved (on behalf of the brothers and sisters of Tuckwell) that letters of' administration be granted to the Public Trustee. That official had made affidavit that, after due inquiry, ho was satisfied that Tuckwell had died intestate. No further proof was required under the statute than that of intestacy.. His Honour said that • that would be so in an ordinary case, but this was not an ordinary case. The Court thought, however, tbat there was sufficient evidence of death. The case had been very fully probed, and his Honour thought that the Court could presume the death, although no particular time could be assigned. ■ He would not, however, make an order that the Public Trustee should pay out at once, as the trustee was entitled to'pay rit any time that he decided upon; AH that could be done at.present was to make' an-order for. administration of.the estate, and! presume that Tuckwell had died intestate. . ~ • In reply to . Mr. McDonald his Honour said that he would express no opinion as to'the distribution' of the estate. That was a matter for the' Public Trustee to decide. This was not'the time to ask the Court for.a-direction. ,The.Court was prepared' to grant -the order, and would presume that Tuckwell died intestate, but would not say that he was either unmarried or a bachelor. The Court would presume that he died at some time subsequent to July 8, 1908, and within seven years thereafter. Mr. M'Donald remarked that the matter of- redistributing the ostato would have to be brought before the Courtlater, on an originating summons. The Public Trustee would not proceed without a direction as .to whom to pay to. The matter was by no mean's settled yet. IN DIVORCE,' A sitting in Divorce was held in the Supreme Court yesterday morning by the Chief 'Justice (Sir Itobcrt Stout) when a decree nisi (to be made absolute in three months) was granted in the case of Ernest. Henry Livermore, w'ho sought'a dissolution'of. his 'marriage with Sarah Aim Livermore on the ground of misconduct. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. P. Levi for respondent. ■ Kespondent did not oppose the application. Ernest .Henry Livermore, of the car sheds, Newtown, labourer, stated .that-he was married to respondent at Wellington on June .12,. 1902, and afterwards'resided 1 at Masterton. There were four children of the marriage, ono 8 years of age, another '61, a third 4}, and the last five weeks. Respondent. was 27 years of age. She had signed an agreement to the divorce in which she admitted misconduct, her reason for the confession being that she, did ■ not wish the publicity of an action in Court. • His Honour stated that, in face of the written' confession, the order asked for wonldr be made.