A WILL CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9305, 14 September 1893, Page 6

A WILL CASE.

At the Banco sittings of the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly, an interesting argument took place as to the construction of the will of Matthew John Goodson, late of Hawera.

Mr. S. Hesketh, instructed by Mr. Oliver Samuel, of New Plymouth, appeared for the trustees, John Hislop, of Normanby, and Chas. Goodson, of Hawera, and Mr. Cotter for Bertha Goodson and Ada Mary Goodson, daughters of the testator, and legatees under the will. In opening the case, Mr. Hesketh said this will had been twice before His Honor at New Plymouth, when he was asked to give directions. The amount involved was a. large one. The trustees had been applied to for payment of £'JOOO each to Bertha and Ada Mary, and their share of the residue, and they felt justified in coming before His Honor for directions. The petition set out that Elizabeth Goodson, now Parrington, attained her majority on the 18th of November, 1890, Joseph Alfred Goodson on the 14th of August, 1889, and Bertha and Ada Mary Goodson on the 28th of November, 1891, and the 23rd of May, 1893, respectively. The two latter had applied to the trustees for the payment to them of £2000 each, and a share of the residue. The petitioners were doubtful whether upon a proper construction of the will, they were justified in paying to Bertha and Ada Mary Goodson the said legacies, and share of residue bequeathed to them, or whether they should retain the corpus, paying only the income derived from it. They prayed his Honor to direct (a) whether the said legacies and share of residue were payable on the legatees attaining the age of 21 years, and (b) whether the petitioners are bound as trustees to retain the legacies and residue, paying only the income derivable from the bequests. Mr. Hesketh read the clauses of the will bearing on the petition, and in one clause the trustees were directed, in the event of the marriage of his daughters, to have settlement.? prepared securing to them the separate use of the legacies. He contended that in consequence of this restriction, the money was not a gift, it was a restricted bequest, although, in another part of the will the legacies were spoken of as bequests, and therefore a gift. The difficulty was to 6nd out the intention of the testator. Was the direction to the trustees as to the settlement, meant to be only a sngge3tion to them, to look after his daughters' interests, and have the settlements made to secure to their separate use these legacies ? Mr. Colter replied on the terms and construction of the will, arguing that a person could not both give and also say what the legatee was to do with the gift, and he would ask His Honor to consider not only what was in the will, but what was not in it, stating that if a testator attempted to do what the law said he shall not do, such restrictions must be set aside and fall to the ground. ' He quoted a number of authorities in support of his contentions, showing that no inalienable estate could be created without a gift over. His Honor pointed out that in this case there was no alienation or attempted alienation ; the solo question was whether these young ladies were entitled to the money, or were they not. Mr. Cotter said that the direction as to the settlement on marriage was an attempt to control a gift, and was not allowed by law; that in fact it was prohibited. Mr. Hesketh said he had considered the cases quoted by his friend, and must admit they went so far that if the restriction was struck out then the bequests became absolute gifts. His Honor said he would take time to " consider his decision.

CLEANLINESS IS NEXT TO GODLINESS.

But at what cost is this cleanliness procured by many people? Often at the cost of a bad and uncomfortable skin, the result of the use of inferior soaps. To insure a good healthful skin Pears' Soap should always be used. .'■"■ ';■•■'•. "'"• '