Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WAS THERE FORFEITURE ?

ABGUMENT OVEB A WILL.

Argument over the terms of a will was heard before Mr. Justice Alpers to-day. The case concerned the will of George Hume, sheep farmer, late of: Martinborough, who died in July, 1923. By. a second eodicie, the testator directed that within three years of his death his trustees should raise £8000 from his estate, to be paid to the 'PuU-. lie Trustee, who was to invest the' money and to pay the net annual inI come to the testator's son, George Gordon Hume, during his lifetime, "without power of anticipation, and so long as he does not become bankrupt or I make a composition with his creditors." The money was accordingly invested, and later, Hume gave an order for fclfi in favour' of Albert William Gould, solicitor, of Ohakune. The order was forwarded to the Public Trust Office, and on its receipt, tho Public Trust Office advißed Gould that it was their opinion that the order operated to determine Hume's interest in the trust fund. Gould then cancelled and withdrew the order. In an affidavit, Hume said it was arranged that he should give evidence of his indebtedness to Goulcl, but that the document was not to be forwarded to the Public Trustee until he had conferred with the latter; and ascertained the precise nature of the provision in his father's will restraining him from anticipating the income. Had he realised that it was a document which could' havo been construed as an attempt' to. anticipate the income under the well, he would not have been so foolish as to have signed it. Gould's affidavit stated that through inadvertence and mistake he sent the order to the Public Trustee. In his anxiety to safeguard his own interests and that of a client who had advanced money, he overlooked and forgot the instructions of Hume, who had since repaid the sum borrowed. Mr. H. F. Johnston appeared for George Gordon Hume, Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell for Hume's wife, and Mr. G. G. Eose for the Public Trustee. After hearing argument, his Honour reserved his decision.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19261103.2.101

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume XCII, Issue 108, 3 November 1926, Page 9

Word Count
352

WAS THERE FORFEITURE ? Evening Post, Volume XCII, Issue 108, 3 November 1926, Page 9

WAS THERE FORFEITURE ? Evening Post, Volume XCII, Issue 108, 3 November 1926, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert