MRS. RHODES'S WILLS UNRAVELLING COMPLEXITIES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 75, 25 September 1914, Page 8

MRS. RHODES'S WILLS UNRAVELLING COMPLEXITIES.

Judge* and counsel were employed again w>-a.ay in tho Supreme Court unravelling' the legal complexities of the wills of tho late Mrs. Sarah Ann Rhodes, who left estate valued for duty at nearly £223,000. Ine presidihg Judge was his Honour Mr. Justice Hocking. The various legatees and interested parties were represented by no fewer than nine members of the Bar. including two King's Counsel. Tho case was an originating summons in which the executors of tho will— W. H. Seftoft Mooi'house. [solicitor, of Wellington ; 0, S. Watldns, accountant, of Wellington ; and John Studholme, Bheopfaj-mor, of Canterbury, were tho plaintiffs, represented by Mr. E. F. Hadfield. There were Dye classes of defendants, each with a. different contention in regard to the two wills and one codicil mode by the deceased lady. These woro Mr. H. Godby, solicitor, Christchurch, represented by Mr. S. G. Raymond, X.C.. with him Mr. Greesoiij the Victoria College, benehoia.ry under the will, represented by Mr 11. F. yon Haaat; Anno Rhodes Ryle and Mary Rhodes Moorhousc, both of England, bonoficiories, represented by Mr. C. P. Skerrotfc. K.C., with him Mr. R. Kennedy j W, H. C. Wigley, boneucmry, represented by Mr. G. Harper; and \V. D Ferguson, represented by Mr. T. S. Woston. Mr. C. W. Nielson appearet^ for J, F. Studholme, who in certain circumstances would share itx the will. The facts, already not forth in yesterdays Post, were briefly that Mrs. Rhodes made two wills, one dated 27th February, 1911, and a, second dated 29th August, 1912, revoking the Bret, substantially, similar, but with one important exception in the bequeefc of £20,000 Canadian Pacific shares to her relatives in England. On. 19th December, 1913, she mad* a codicil, which, through misadventure apparently* became attached to the first will and nofc to the second. When probate wae grahfced by Mr. Justice Hosking h© made the codicil refer to tho second will. The questions now before the Court were : Did the codicil revive the first will which had been revoked ? If bo, do the codicil and the first will entirely revoke the second will? Or are the first and second wills and the codicil to b« read and construed together? Argument on those questions was carried on by learned counsel throughout th« sitting yesterday and continued to-day,