A WILL PUZZLE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8365, 27 February 1913, Page 9

A WILL PUZZLE

WHO IS “LAWFUL HEEB"7. Whether or not the devisee under a will was the “lawful hair” of the teatutor was a question put to his Honor Mr Justice Sim in Banco yesterday. The- plaintiff was Charles Thomas Rushbrook, of Wellington, civil servant, and the defendant Alfred Edward Pearman, of WeJlsford, fanner. The ease concerned the will of Charles Rushbrook, late of Port Albert. The deceased, by his will, appointed ids widow testatrix of his estate of 163 acres, and directed, that upon the death of the testatrix or upon her marrying again, the property should pass to his “lawful heir.” Mr E. F. Hadfield appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr B. C. Kirk for the defendant. The plaintiff asked for the determination of the following questions; 1. Is the plaintiff the eldest son of the testator? 2. 'ls defendant entitled to require that the deed of conveyance carrying the agreement to sell into effect should be executed by members of the family of the testator? 3. The administratrix, being dead, should a further grant of administration with the will annexed be made and the deed of conveyance executed by such administrator in order to convey the beneficial and legal estate in the said land, or doe? the legal and beneficial estate vest in the lawful heir of deceased by virtue of the terms of the will? . . 4. Who is the “lawful heir” according to the true intent and meaning of the will? 5. Is the defendant entitled to have the deed of conveyance executed by my person, beside the plaintiff? It was contended on behalf of plaintiff that there was a complete devise of the estate to the eldest son. Mr Kirk submitted that the eldest =on was not the person entitled to . the property, but that it should he deemed to be property vesting, ip an adminiitrator to be appointed, who should convey all-the legal estate to the defendant and account for the moony to all’the members of the family. Decision was reserved.