THE AMBIGUOUS WILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18762, 16 July 1924, Page 7

THE AMBIGUOUS WILL.

Sir,-—Mr. Towle's letter is not very convincing. He says: "It is' difficult to see how such an institution as St„ Mary's Homes can be termed an 'orphanage'." In the narrow legal sens© of course it is not an orphanage, but the very conditions of the case which necessitated a reference to the Supreme Court exclude narrow legal definitions. What are the facts ? In St. Mary's Homes, Otahuhu, there are three homes, one of which is for unwanted children up to three years of age, and where they are given a chance to begin life with healthy bodies. In the narrow legal sens© it is perhaps not an "orphanage," but those children are doubly' orphans—damned before their birth never to know a father's love or care. Mr. Towle quotes Mr. Budd's evidence. It appears from it that shortly before his death the testator have some doubts as to whether he had rightly designated the orphanage to which he had bequeathed his money. Mr. Budd evidently was misled by the use of the word orphanage, and at once jumped to the conclusion that it wa3 the Papatoetoe institution that was* meant, and " informed him that it was at Papatoetoe and not Otahuhu." When Mr. Bond spoke to me some years ago, he was in his usual health, and he then expressed to me what he thought of the work for infants at St. Mary's Homes, saying, "It was splendid." With that knowledge I am Convinced that it was the use of the word "orphanage' in his will which was troubling the testator. Which would a man: be more likely to make a mistake about when making a will—to substitute "St. Mary's. Otahuhu," for " Papatoetoe," or to substitute "orphanage " for " Homes ?'' The words " St, Mary's" and " Otahuhu " would have a definite meaning for him, while he would be most likely to use the word " orphanage ' in a vague sense. What Mr. Towle tells us of the action of the General Trust Board and its solicitor makes it imperative that sohte explanation should be given why such action was taken, and neither the executor nor the trust board took the trouble to consult the St. Mary's Homes' Committee. I am informed that the chairman of the committee know nothing of the matter. Someone is to blame for what I am convinced was a grave miscarriage oil justice. What makes this question of grave importance is not the amount of money involved, but the principle that tcstater'sbegnest should go to the righfc quarter. - • mimes MAoMWKftAX,