CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6763, 21 July 1883, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

COSTLEY'S WILL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The executors baviug, I understand, declined to say whether or not they will retain the real property held under the will to allow time for an application to be made to Parliament for a private Act, unless and until the entire body of trustees request them to do so, I may be allowed, as one of the minority, to state some of the grounds for wishing the property sold, the estate wound np, and the money divided or paid over to the trustees of the several institutions. The idea of a general trust of all the property was, I would premise, throughout strongly and consistently advocated by Mr. Firth, aud he impressed his own views very forcibly, one must adinit, upon the public mind. A large majority of the trustees decided, however, that the money, and the securities representing money, should not be so held; though a majority equally large decided to retain the freehold property, if an Act for this purpose could be obtained. In both instances the opinion of the minority should, I submit, be respected; for the trustees, equally with JMr. Firth, were and are actuated by only one desire—to do the very best for the institutions they represent. After full consideration then I voted with the majority in the first instance, and with the minority in the second, for the following reasons among others :—

1. To have acted otherwise would have been to disregard the express directions of the testator, as contained in his will, and in a paper writing drawn up by his own hand many months previous to his death.

2. As the trustees decided by an overwhelming majority to divide the greater portion of the estate (about two-thirds) among the legatee institutions, it appeared undesirable, and contrary to the principle, of the previous resolutions to retain the remaining third.

3. It appeared more than probable, according to the better legal opinions, that Parliament would decline to pass an Act to settle the trusts in manner required, as being opposed to the terms of the wilt, and the plain duty of the executors thereunder. The majority of the trustees viewed, I think, the legal opinion with much indifference ; but they appear to me entitled to considerable weight.

i. There is nothing, I believe, more likely to deter persons from making similar charitable bequests than the conviction that their last wishe?, as to the disposal of their property, would be disregarded by those in whom thoy confided, or intended to benefit.

5. The idea of one general trust expresses a sentimental feeling, called into existence solely by a desire to do honour to the donor. But if buildings are erected for charitable or public purposes inscribed with a suitable reference to the donor, they will keep his name and generosity before the public with far greater certainty than if left to be gathered from the fact that several pieces of land, in various parls of the city or suburbs, are held for public purposes. The buildings will be monuments, seen by every citizen and stranger; the property, and the uses on which it is held, only discovered after enquiry and research.

6. The policy of the present day is, to remove as completely as possible, ihe " dead hand " from off land. The course proposed to be adopted would fasten it upon the land for all time to come.

Mr. Firth, is a trustee of two very important institutious—the Hospital and the Old People's Refuge—and the public, if the property is sold, will look to him to aid (as I have no deubt he will) the other trustees in administering the funds to the greatest advantage. The best course, from his own point of view, may not have been adopted, but he may fairly be asked to carry out the next best, by expending the money in such a manner as to confer the greatest benefit upon those for whom it was designer!, and keep alive the name of the donor as a great publicjjenefactor.

If the trustees act judiciously, neither Mr. Firth nor the public will, I am persuaded, have any real cause to regret the sale of the property; but whilst retaining my own opinion unaltered, I shall consider it my duty, ou request made by the trustees, to offer no further opposition to the wishes of the majority.—l am, &c, E. A. Mackeohsie.

PATENTS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —For o patent in Great Britain the fees payable to the Law Office are as follow : —On leaving petition for grant of letters patent, £5; on notice of intention to proceed with application, £5 ; on warrant of law officer for letters patent, £0 ; on filing specification, £5; at or before expiration of third year, £50 ; at or before expiration of seventh year, £100. Those sums are exclusive of patent agents' fees. The term is for fourteen years. Ido not know, however, the scale of charges that would be made to secure letters patent in Britain for an invention that is already patented in New Zealand.— I am, &c, Cr.