LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9324, 29 March 1889, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Banco. Thursday. [Jiefore His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.] Will of tub late Richard Keals.— In the matter of the Trustee Ant. 1883, and of the will of the late Richard Keals, architect. Mr. Hesketh moved for direction as to the manner in which the will is to be construed. Mr. liesketh appeared for the trustees, and Mr. Button for Mrs. Keals, the widow of deceased. The deceased died in October, 1885, leaving a will in which Messrs. 11. F. Anderson and J. Wilson were trustees. Probate in the will was granted . on the 10th of January, 1886. By the will he left to his widow the whole of his household furniture and effects, and £100 to be paid to her within two months after bis death ; also the house in which he died, if it was his own house, or if not that she be allowed £75 per annum in lieu of the house as long as she remained a widow. The trustees were empowered to sell or dispose of property, invest the proceeds as a residuary trust fund, to pay to his wife the sum of £300 a year as _ long as she remained a widow, or in the event of her second marriage £100 ayear, and his daughter, Mary Jane Smith, of Invercarsjill, the sum of £50 a-ycar, the rest to be divided equally between his three children (including Mrs. Smith). That after his wife's death, the trustees should hold the estate in trust for his three children or their heirs. The petition set forth that at the time of the testator's death he was not living in a house of his own, and they allowed the widow £75 per annum in lieu of the house, in addition to the sum of £300 mentioned in the will. The' income arising from the testator's estate had not been sufficient to enable the trustees to pay to the widow £300 per annum arid to the daughter £50 per annum, and the payment to the widow of the additional £75 per annum ; and in consequence of such insufficiency they had hitherto required that such payments should abate, and they had made payments in abatement accordingly on the sums of £300, £50, and £75. The testator's widow, who is still alive and unmarried, made application to appropriate the income from the estate solely to the payment to her of the £,']' \ and the £75 in the first place, contending that the will required that this should be a first charge on the income, or that if the £75 is not payable out of the income, that the trustees pay her the £75 out of the capital of the estate. As the petitioners entertained serious doubts as to the construction of the will, and as to whether the contentions of the widow were sound in law, and whether they were bound to give effect to them, and they also entertain doubts as to other questions arising under the will, they desired to ask His Honor's direction with regard to the following questions : —l. Are the annuities of £300 and £50 to the widow and daughter chargeable upon the corpus or upon the income of the estate? 2. If such are chargeable on the income, must the widow's annuity be made a first charge upon such income, notwithstanding such income may not exceed £300? 3. If the annuities to the wife and daughter are chargeable on the income, are they a continuing charge on the same, or are they to be only paid out of the income per annum ; or, if the income for any particular year should be insufficient to pay them in full, the deficiency must be made up out of the income of subsequent years ? 4. Is the allowance of £75 to the widow chargeable on the income or corpus of the estate? 5. If such allowance is chargeable upon the income, in what order must it be paid in reference to the annuities to the widow and daughter? 6. Whether the sum paid for duty by the petitioners is included in the expression "testamentary expenses" in the will, and whether the petitioners are justified in converting property into money for the purpose of paying this duty when by such operation the fund out of which income arises becomes lessened ? His Honor said it had been held under this Act that the Court could not on petition construe a will, pr determine the rights of parties. Mrs. Keals claimed a preference over her daughter. His Honor quoted the judgment of Williams, and the authorities which supported it, and said that his application did not come within the meaning of the Act, and any opinion that he might give on the petition would not be binding. It would require to be by suit, and perhaps the best course would bo for the widow to sue for what she considered she was entitled to, and the children should be made parties to the suit. Mr. Hesketh said all the parties were consenting parties, and anxious to have the matter settled. He withdrew the application. Rationalist Newspaper Company - .—-On Wednesday Mr. Mahony had moved for writs of attachment against certain contributories who were in default of payment of a call of 4s, ordered by the Court to be paid to the liquidator. His Honor then pointed out that if the writs were issued, the Sheriff would be compelled to bring the parties before the Court, as the writ was not for the debt, but for disobeying the order of the Court. Mr. Mahony now said that he had been looking into the matter, and there was no power given to proceed on the order. He had conferred with the liquidator, and as in consequence of these proceedings payments were coming in, he would ask His Honor to allow the matter to stand adjourned sine die, in order that it might be brought up again if necessary.

R.M. COURT.—Thursday. [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.J

Undefended Cases.—ln the following undefended cases judgment was given for tho plaintiffs :—M. J. Gilmour v. T. Sanderson, £37, costs £4 18s; G. Bailey v. Grace, £1, costs 6s; McCullough and Co. v. T. J. Allen, £1, costs 6s ; T. Steadman and Co. v. T. Neillie, £1 7s 9d, costs 10s ; W. R. Cook v. J. Lavery, £1 12s 7d, costs Cs; J. Wright v. E. Stapleton, £6 9s 9d, costs £2 Is W. S. Whitley v.' J. Sullivan, £5 7s 7d, cost.3 £1 12s ; R. Hutchinson v. J. Silvado, Bs, costs 3s; Official Assignee in Bankruptcy v. T. D. CJeghorn. £3 5s 6d, costs £1 lps 6d; W. R. Cook v. John Boyce, £4 Os 9d, costs £1 12s; Bank of New Zealand v. George Thomas, £85 14s 6d, costs £5 Bs.

Bank ok New Zealand v. W. llorne.

—This was an action in respect of a promissory note, the amount claimed being £55 7s 4d. Mr. C. Buddie appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Blades for the defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, with costs £5 9s.

Parker, Green and Co. v. M. Biggs. —Claim, £39 6s 3d. Mr. Stone appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Earl for the defendant. The plaintiffs arc merchants with whom H. Biggs, a boot and shoemaker, who carried on business in Parnell, dealt. H. Biggs died in August, 1887, being then indebted to the plaintiff's in the sum of £23. His business was taken up by the defendant, his wife, who continued the account of her husband with Parker, Green and Co., and paid moneys to them altogether exceeding the amount due by the deceased. The present action wag brought to recover £39 6s 3d now owing. Some of the evidence in the case had been heard at Te Aroha. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, with costs, £4 14s. R. Eagleton v, M. Doran'.—Claim £6, for? a fancy costume. Mr. Baume appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Clondon for the defendant. The evidence showed that, on the 15th. of August, the defendant, Miss Doran, who lives a l } Gisborne, hired from the plaintiff seven fancy costumes, including that of a cavalier of the time of Charles I. This costume cost Messrs. Eagleton Bros. £12 10s, and ib was lent to Miss Doran at £5. Six of the costumes had been returned, but the seven the cavalier dress, had nob been sent back, and they now claimed

for its recovery, with £1 as damages for detention. Before entering upon the oage for the defence, Mr. Olendon urged thai' the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, as the cause of action arose at Gisborne, the detention . having taken, place there. Ilia Worship reserved judgment upbn this point, and the case was proceeded with. The evidence for the defence had been heard at Gisborne, and showed that the whole of thecostumes hadbeen duly returned by one of the Union Co.'s boats, and the missing one must have been lost on the voyage, especially as the parcel on arrival in Auckland was found to be torn. His Worship said he would consider the point raised by Mr. Olendon as to jurisdiction, but upon the merits of the case itself ho gave judgment for the plaintiff, as it had been stipulated that the goods must be returned safe to Mr. Eagleton's premises. A. Watson v. E. Austin.—Claim, £6 43 4d, for board and lodging. Mr. Franklin ■appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr, Humphreys for the defendant. This case had been partly heard at a previous sitting, and His Worship now reserved judgment. POLICE COURT.Thursday. [liiifore Dr. Giles, R.M.] Drunkenness.—One person was punished for this offence.

Larceny.—John Row, charged with the larceny of 251b of coal, the property of M, Niccol, and also of a quantity of firewood, the property of J. J. Craig, was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour for each offence, the terms to be concurrent.

The Charges of Larceny of Kerosene. —The hearing of the charges against Edward H. Jaggar of stealing a quantity of kerosene, and against Thomas Perryman, of receiving this kerosene, knowing it to have been stolen, was further postponed until Thursday, on the application of Mr. Brassey, who appeared on behalf of Jaggar. Bail was enlarged. Assault.—Robert Henry Iveenan was charged with having assaulted Samuel Burns, by striking him on the face with his clenched fist. Mr. Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. The plaintiff, Burns, whose face was a good deal bruised and swollen, deposed that he was employed in driving a handcart, whilst Keenan was a cab proprietor, On Tuesday witness took the iuggage of a passenger who had arrived by the Te Anaii, and brought Martin's cab to this passenger when he was leaving the steamer. Keenan asked witness why he had not brought his (defendant's) cab to the steamer to take the passenger away, and, after some words, Keenan struck the plaintiff several blows on the face. This testimony was corroborar.ed by other witnesses. The evidence for the defence snowed that the plaintiff had commenced the quarrel by using insulting language to Keenan. In consideration of this fact, the Bench dismissed the case, each party to pay his own costs.