APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 239, 27 June 1918, Page 8

APPEAL COURT

A WILL CASE. The Appeal C>urt (Second Division) sat yesterday to'hear a case on appeal from Christchurch. On the bench were His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), His Honour Mr, Justice Chapman, and Mis Honour Jlr. Juslise Stringer. The cose was that of Irene Myrtle Cook, Dorothy Cook, and Marjorio Cork, appellants, and John Eichard Webb and Leicester Matson, executors of the will of William Cook, deceased. The decKiswl left an estate valued at approxMuii'.ely 4'21i,M0 During his life he had been living apart from his wife, lo ivliori he paid. M ss. per week, with occupation of a house and the use of the furniture. He' left the i property to his wife with £2 ss. per week, and pave to each daughter i£soo, together with a one-sixteenth part .'of , the residue'of his estate, the greater part of which was left to strangers. His Ilonour Mr. Justioe Herdman, who heard the case in Christchurch, ordered the trustees to pay Mrs. Cook nn additional £3 per week as from'the date of her husband's death, the amount (o be charged against that part of the estate which lad ken bequeathed lo Sersons other than the wife and chilren. His Honour did not vary (he will 1 'as far as it affected the daughters, and against that decision the appeal was made. ' i After hearing argument the Court re- : served judgment. '• . Mr. 11. J. Beswick appeared for the appellants; Mr. J. J. Dougal! for the respondents; and Mr. S. C 4. Raymond, K.C., with him Mr: F. W,-Johnston,-for opposing beneficiaries. (RESERVED . JUDGMENT. The Court reserved judgment in respect of the application of C. C. Chalmers, of Auckland, to be admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court. The application was made under Section 5 of the Law Practitioners Act. ni the ground, that for five years preceding the date .of the application Chalmers had been' managing cle.'k in the firm of 'Buddie,-Richmond, and Buddie. The queetion at issue was whether the applicant, by reasomof his being in charge of the common 'aw departnent, could be rightly termed ma.'iaging clerk. Counsel for Chalmers relied on certain Victorian coses, but. the unanimous opinion of the Court was that the applicant, had lot established that he,was. managing clerk within the meaning of the eection. Tho application was accordingly dismissed. Costs were not. applied for. At tho hearing Mr. R. M. A'igie, of Auckland, appeared'for ihe applicant, and Mr. H. F. von. Haast for the New Zealand Law Society, -