£75,961 INVOLVED

Evening Star, Issue 22032, 18 May 1935, Page 20

£75,961 INVOLVED

GIFT TO CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS FAIL RELATIVES TO INHERIT [Pur United Press Association.] WELLINGTON. May 18. Judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Campbell and others v. the New Zealand Insurance Company Ltd. and the AttorneyGeneral. By the judgment of the court the sum of between £75,000 and £BO,OOO passes from charitable and benevolent institutions to those of the next-of-kin of the deceased, Catherine Smith, who succeed on intestacy. In a lengthy judgment the Chief Justice considered the many authorities relating to the question, and came to the conclusion that the phrase used by the testatrix was too wide and indefinite, and that the gift must be held void for its uncertainty. Mr Justice Reed took a different view, being of the opinion that the testatrix had made l her own dictionary and had sufficiently indicated the objects of her intention. Mr Justice Smith and Mr Justice Johnston were of the opinion that the gift must fail, as the testatrix had not sufficiently defined the class from which the trustees could select the beneficiaries. The appeal was allowed in accordance with a majority judgement and an order made that the fund should descend as on intestacy, and that the costs of all parties should be taxed and paid out of the, estate. [ln August, 1933, Mrs Catherine Smith, of Auckland, died, leaving an estate valued at £126,595 17s lOd. After specific ■ legacies to relatives and charities had been disposed of, the residue of the estate amounted to £75,961, and* under the will, the trustee, the New Zealand Insurance Company, was directed it in making bequests towards institutions, societies, or objects established in or about Auckland for charitable, benevolent, educational, or religious purposes, as it deemed advisable. In December* 1933, the New’ Zealand Insurance Company applied to the Supreme Court at Auckland for a ruling on this provision, in particular as to whether it was a valid gift, and, if not, to whom the residue went. Mr Justice Herdman held that it was a valid bequest, and therefore nothing further need be decided. The relatives considered that the provision was invalid by reason of its uncertainty, and that therefore they were entitled to inherit.]