CAWTHRON TRUST BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 19 July 1924, Page 2

CAWTHRON TRUST BILL

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I have read the letter of Mr W. J. Moffatt in your issue of the 15th inst. in reference to my remarks as reported in the Legislative Council in the debate on the Cawthron Trust BillReduced to actual statements contained therein, they are:—Firstly, that I suggest the interpretations of the Bill as given b ytho Chief Justice Nov. 12, 1915, and the Full Court July 13. 1916, and being now fulfilled in the administration by the Trustees, and Executors as appointed by these judgments are a correct interpretation of the intentions of the late Mr Cawthron as expressed in bis will. The judgments are as follows: —Chief Justice Stout says, “I think that the naming of the executors by office is .sufficient, but, it is usual in appointing executors by the Court to appoint by name. As all these persons have been identified ,they will be appointed by name.” The Full Court- says:— “As was stated in. the case of re Cawthron 1916 the appointment -cf trusteees and executors was to persons who were-to bo .ascertained by the holding of tho offices named. The trustees will not cease to be trustees when they cease to hold the offices they now* hold.” Some reference is made to “special Act,” “obvious intention of testator,’ ’etc.. Tho special Act referred in the judgment is as follows:—“A special Act seems tr be required to make the matter clear, etc., etc.”—but there is no reference whatever to the “obvious intention of the testator in the judgments. Secondly, “That the people of Nelson entirely approve the Bill.” This is what Mr 'Moffatt does not attempt to contradict or refute. I did not say or suggest “that the infusion of new blood is. necessary—but that it is thought to be desirable, thus providing that the administration of the Cawthron Trust will not become the sport or local elections while providing for the infusion of new blood, keeping the Trustees a really live body as stated by me. This I venture to suggest is a most acceptable provision to the people who desii’e the continued good administration of tho Trust. What Mr

Moffatt and his friends think as to the late Mr Cawthroii’s obvious intentions, etc., do not concern me—the Supreme Court and Full Court have decided that his intention was expressed in his will and is now boing carried out. I am still satisfied that tho Hon. Sir Francis Bell as Attorney-General is acting on behalf of the people of Nelson in introducing the Thomas Cawthron Trust Bill as it is, knowing that it contains provisions calculated to keep tho administration of the Trust on sound lines in tho years to come. ; I am, etc., W. W. SNODGRASS.