INTERPRETATION OF A WILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13862, 27 March 1907, Page 2

INTERPRETATION OF A WILL.

He JOHN DOUGLAS (Deceased). His Honor Mr Justice "Williams yester. day gnvo his decision in connection withi an application for the interpretation of certain clauses in the will of tho late John Douglas, Mount Royal. His Honor's judgment was as follows: — llie testator's Mount Koyal Estate, mtlj tho stock'and chattels upon it, were deviscdl and beqetiatlied to his trustees nyoit certain' trusts and powers m tho will mentioned and subject thereto, and to an annuity to tho testator's widow upon trust for the testator's son Allan if, and whentx-er, he should, attain the age of 26 years. Tho will then charges the propelty m question "with ilia payment to my trustees, to be. held upon, the trusts hereinafter declared m favour o! my d'aughtci, Winifred Amrio Douglas, of tho 911111 of £10,000 and interest thereon, computed from' tho day my said daughter attains tho age of 26 years, or, with the consent of her guardians for the time being, she marries under that age, at the rat© of interest hereinafter mentioned." The trusts declared aro that tho trustees, are to hold!

tlio £10,000, or its lnvostuiWs, upon trust after tho daughter attains 20, to pay tho annual income to her for her separate uso without power of anticipation, and after her death on tho trusts 'therein mcutioned. for her children or lemoter issue. If the daughter does not attain 26, or has no child who attains 21, or dies -under that ago, leaving lawful issue- who lake, tho trustees ore to hold tho £10,000 and accumulated interest in trust for the testator's son Allan on hie attaining 20 absolutely. It will bo observed that in the earlier paragraph tho interest appears to becomo payablo on the daughter \ attaining 20, or on previous marriage with consent, and in the latter only on her attaining 26. That, however, docs not affect tha present question 1 , becattjo by tho terras of the charge the interest is to bo "computed" from hor attaining 26 or previous marriage with consent, and it would undoubtedly go with tha £10,000, either to her as income or as an accretion to the capital from the

time of hor mamage. It is clear therefoio that the charge was ctea.t«d solely for tho benefit of the daughter and her issue, oodl that tho vesting of a hfo interest in tha daughter was contingent on cortam specified cents -from tlio happening of ivliich interest t on tho £10,000 was to bo computed. It was contended that it was tho duty of the trustees, within a year after tho testator's death, by sale or mortgage ot Mount Royal estate, under their powers or otherwise, to to gob this £10,000 into their hands and! invest it. The contention suggested by the questions in tho originating simunons is that tho accrued interest on the sum so invested would, on the life interest vesting, belong to tlio daughter absolutely.' Mr Hosking, however, did not put forward that contention, but urged tlut tho interest until vesting would bo added to itho 'principal sum.' I can find nothing in tho mil to indicate tho testatoi's intention that this sum should nocossarily be set apart boforo tho time of vesting arrived. He contemplates in faofc that the persons idtimatoly entitled to Mount Royal may attain a \ostcd interest and have the property transferred to them boforo the £10,000 is raised. In such case '

he provides that tho trustees are t° take a mortgage from the persons to whom tho property 13 transfeired to sccuro tho £10,000. It is to be secured " with interest as aforesaid," that is,' with interest from tlio date from which, by terms of the charge, interest 13 to bo computed. No doubt the posibihty of tho £10,000 being raised is contemplated by the testatoi, but there is absolutely nothing in the will to indicate au intentaou of tho testatoi that it was to bo raised before

tho beneficial interest becaiM vested, still less is there auy indication that it was the duty of the trustees to raise at at once. If tho trustees, for tho purposo of administering the estate, think it advisable to soil Mount Royal 6r anj part of it, and «o reabso

the £10,000, they have power to do so. In such case, however, on the principal or in. ro liu»an (1693, 3 Ch, 518), Iho income on tho investments of the £10,000 would not accrue lor the benefit of tho contingent interests. It is out of tho quostion to'treat the charge as if it were a present legacy to the trustees It is not a legacy to the trustees at all, but is given to the truateea to provide fot contingent legacies to his daughter and her issue, and there is an express provision that interest is to run on the £10,000 onlv fiom. the time the first legacy vest". Tho answer to question 1 of the summons is: Ko. Question 2 Ko. Question 3. Yes. Question 4: Yes. Question 5. No. Question G: No. 1-——— , :