COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13305, 11 October 1906, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL.

a. 1 MEANING OF A WILL. a I [BY TELEGRAPH.—I'RESS ASSOCIATION - . J A Wellington, Wednesday. e At the Court of Appeal this morning the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Judges Edwards,' Cooper, and Chapman resumed ; the hearing of the case of St. Hill and an- " other v. St. Hill. This was an originating i- summons to determine the meaning of certain provisions of the will of Ashton St. Hill, deceased, removed- into the Court of Appeal for determination. ' Mr. Bell having concluded his argument, - Mr. Graham • contended that the defendant should be put tc. her election by the Court as to which sum she should take. Mr. Martin Chapman, for the defendant, the widow of the deceased testator, then addressed the Court, and contended that she was entitled to receive the £3000 covenanted to be paid to her in 1897, and the £3000 legacy left to her under the testator's will, made in 1901. Mr. Bell then replied briefly. ' The Court reserved judgment. . ~ AN OPTION TO PURCHASE. The Chief Justice and Judges Edwards, Cooper and Chapman then began the hearing of the case of Home v. Home and others. This was a case removed by consent into the Court of Appeal for argument, evidence having been taken in Blenheim, where most of the parties reside. Plaintiff, Francis Edward Home, is a contractor at Dannevirke, and, on behalf of the beneI ficiaries under the will, he is suing the defendants, Leonard Home, Ellen Maria ■ Home, and Lilian Mary Home, trustees of the will of Ellen Home, deceased. Plain- ' tiff, in his statement of claim, alleges that under the will the trustees were directed ' to sell certain farm property in the district of Lower Wairau, and after paying certain sums out of the proceeds, to divide the ' balance in equal shares amongst the sons and daughters of the testatrix. Instead of selling the farm property as directed, the trustees leased it for seven years to John ' Greig and Richard Mcßae Greig, giving the lessees an optional purchasing clause for the sum of £8000 at any time within the seven years of lease. Plaintiff alleges that the lease purported to be made in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the testatrix before her death with the Messrs. Greig, but that no such agreement was ever made, or, if made, was not such an agreement as to satisfy the statute'of frauds, and that the trustees under the will had no power to grant such a lease. The plaintiff alleges .' that the price mentioned in the option to purchase, £8000, is some £4000 or £5000 below the real value of the property, and he asks the Court to amend the lease by iking out the option. The trustees uri- • der the will, in their statement of defence, allege that thev signed the lease because they were advised that they were legally bound to do so, and they submit to thV judgment of the Court. Messrs. Greig J Brothers were joined as defendants, and in ! their statement of defence they set out that I the testatrix before her death instructed her | solicitor to offer them (they being the les- - I sees of the farm property under a lease ' ! about to expire) a new lease for seven years/' I with a purchasing clause at £8000, and that they accented this offer. The deeds necessary for this transaction were drawn up, and engrossed by the testatrix's instructions, but before they -were signed by her she' died suddenly. They allege, further, that the will gave the trustees power to postpone the sale of the; property,'and to lease it, and in pursuance of this power, and the agreement made with the testatrix, the trustees executed a lease. Defendants also allege that the land was not at the time of the granting of the lease worth more : than £8000. The question for the determination of the Court is whether the option to purchase in the lease is valid. Dr. Findlay appeared for the plaintiff, and the trustees of the will, who submit to the judgment of the Court, and Mr. H. D. , Bell appeared for the defendants, Messrs. Greic. Dr. Findlay opened the argument for the plaintiff after stating the facts as mentioned above. S —a' j