SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12588, 24 August 1901, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

IN CHAMBERS. 5 Friday, August 23. Bis Honor Mr Justice Denniston held a sitting in Chambers at 11 a.iri. Re Donald H. Monro, deceased. —Mr Fisher moved for letters of administration, and his Honor granted the application os prayed. Re James Henry Wrenn, deceased.—Mr Widdowson moved for consideration of Registrar’s report. His Honor allowed commission as per the report, less £6 17s 6d to-be deducted from the commission on the 'income account. Re Robert E. Stoddart, deceased.—Air Loughrey applied for letters of administration. His Honor allowed the case to stand; ever. Sime v. Hume and another.—Mr Johnston moved on an originating summons. Mr Fisher appeared for the executrix. After hearing argument, his Honor reserved decision. Re Elizabeth A. Livingstone, deceased. —Mr Andrews moved for letters of administration, which his Honor granted, as prayed. Re. Emma Delnen.—Mr Ross applied for letters of administration, and his Honor agreed. - . Probate of the wills of the following de- , ceased , persons was granted : —Edward Wright (Mr Fisher), John Hanccx (Mr Johnston) and Thomas Lucas (Air Weston). CAMPBELL V. CAMPBELL. Judgment in this case had been reserved, and his Honor, in delivering judgment, said the case ii on an originating summons by the trustees of the will of Arthur Campbell, deceased, who asked for an interpretation of a proviso in such will, which was in the following terms: —“I declare that no grandchildren of mine shall take any interest under the will unless such grandchild shall be brought up in the -religious faith according to which it was baptised.” The case had beers argued on the assumption that on breach in the case of any grandchild of the condition in the proviso there would be an intestacy as to. his or her share,'and that thepnterest would pass to the father. It had not been stated by counsel for itlrc fait-her itbat in some cases such breach and consequent forfeiture had taken place, and that the father was claiming the interests alleged to ‘ be so forfeited. In the case of grandsons, if he (his Honor) was right in holding they took a vested 1 interest at once he had, however, expressed a confident opinion that in such cases there could be no breach. In the case of granddaughters, if their interest was only contingent, and was forfeited before it became vested, any forfeited legacy would fall into the residue, which was given to all the grandchildren. It was admitted that at least one of the grandchildren had attained his majority, having fulfilled the condition in the proviso. Such child or children would take the residue. He (bis Honor) did not see, therefore, bow tbe father could benefit in any case. The result was that he decided that, it being admitted that all the grandchildren had, at the date of the testator’s death, been brought up in the religious faith' according to which they were baptised, the condition was satisfied as to all of them. The cost of all parties, ;.s between, solicitor and client, to be paid out of tbe estate, Mr Stringer appeared for the trustees and Mr Donnelly for Alexander Campbell. WADE V. OVERTON. This was a case -ran an originating summons, and his Honor, in delivering judgment, said the testator, Abraham Wade (deceased), - devised aR his estate to a trustee in trust to permit his wife during wtfdowhOad to 'have the use of a house, garden aid padddek, and as to the rest on trust for sale and! conversion, and to wrest the proceeds and to pay the income os well before as after conversion to hi® wife. Upon death or marriage of his wife he hod) directed the trustee to pay the income of

the bulk of his property to his daughters during their lives. Be had empowered-the trustee, while any real estate remained unsold, to manage, cany on and cultivate the same with all this powers of an absolute owmor with power to repair and' insure. buildings, and had directed the trustee to' deduct and allow himself £5 per cent commission on. all moneys passing through bis hands in connection' with the trusts of the will. The trustee claimed the right to collect and receive rents or income from the parcel of land, the net rents, profits and other annual income of which lie was directed to allow the wife to receive, and tocharge on the same as moneys passing through his hands in connection with the trusts. He (his Honor) was satisfied that the words “to allow to receive” income meant something more than the words “ to pay ” income, contained in the same will. He did not think they could be treated as less, effective than if the equitable tenant for life had been placed in possession of the property, in which case the wife would receive the rents and profits, and the trustee could not obtain commission for collecting. Here the trust as to the parcel of land was distinct, and all disbursements in' connection with it must be paid out of its rents and profits. He thought, therefore, the Registrar rightly disallowed the claim for commission. As to the question of interest*, he had already expressed the opinion that the trustee., was chargeable with interest on all moneys improperly retained. Costs of the application would be £2 2s. Mr M’Connel appeared for Mrs Wade, and Mr Meares for the trustee.