DISPUTE OVER WILL

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 4324, 27 July 1937, Page 6

DISPUTE OVER WILL

VALUABLE ESTATE The will of the late Sir Frederick Norman, of Runcorn, Cheshire, was contested in the Chancery Division recently, reports the ‘ Daily Telegraph.’ The plaintiff was Rev. Charles Ernest Norman, one of the two executors. There were 29 defendants —all beneficiaries under the will —and they included Lady Norman, the widow. Ten counsel were engaged in the action. Sir Frederick, who died on March 16, left estate worth £78,000. Mr Harold Brown, for Rev. C. E. Norman, said that Sir Frederick was a man of considerable independence of mind and speech. He carried his independence to the extent of being his own conveyancer, and not only did he draw up his own will, but also a document whereby he purported to bestow an annuity upon Rev. C. E. Norman.

Among the questions to be decided, it was stated, was one whether a bequest to Lady Norman was void. Mr Justice Crossman held that the bequest to Lady Norman was not void. Upon that decision the question arose as to. whether Lady Norman was entitled to the capital sum of £20,000 absolutely, or such a sum as, when invested, would produce an annual sum of £IOOO. In his will Sir Frederick said that he “desired to keep green the memory of my first wife, and to make ample provision of a generous character for the future of my second wife, to keep her in the refinement and simplicity observed during my life.” Mr W, Geddes, for pecuniary legatees, submitted that all Sir Frederick intended was to safeguard Lady Norman’s future by the provision of a sufficient income, and that he did not contemplate making her a gift of capital. He had made her very large gifts during his life.

Mr Justice Crossman held that Sir Frederick meant to provide Lady Norman with an annual income sufficient to supply her needs, and not to make her an out-and-out gift of capital. Counsel for various legatees contended that Lady Norman’s private fortune should be taken into account in fixing the annual amount payable to her. It was eventually agreed that Lady Norman should receive £IOOO a year free of tax.

The court then dealt with the question of the validity of a legacy of £2OO to the “Liberal Party, local or national.”

Mr E. Askroyd, for Lady Norman,

submitted that the gift was bad on the ground of uncertainty. There was nothing to show what Liberal Party was referred to —Simonite or Samuelite. It was a split party.

Mr Justice Crossman: What did he mean to do?

Mr Ackroyd: Sir Frederick was connected with the Liberal Party and he probably wanted to make a gift to what are commonly known as the party funds.

Mr Justice Crossman held that it was an alternative gift, “local or national,’" and that it was void for uncertainty. He also held that the following were valid charitable gifts: A legacy of £2OOO to the Runcorn Rural District: Council for the benefit of “worthy citi-| zens worsted in life’s battle”; one of £2OOO to the Runcorn Nursing Association for the “sick and sad”; one of £2OOO to the Runcorn education authority for the benefit of poor scholars.