SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13941, 28 June 1907, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTING. a Thursday, June 27. (Before his Honor Sfcr Jusiico "Williams,) CHAFFEY V BUTTERWOHTII AND OTHERS. Application to rccti{y the marriage settlemenl of Mrs Ada Maud Webster Chaffoy, the principal question being wMier afterrequired property- should have been included in the setllemcni. Mt WoodhouM niyoeaml for plain-tiff, Mt SUtham for C. P. M. BuMerworth, Mt Galla"\TOy Leslie E. Chaffey, Mt Stewart for Florence Bachelor and her two infant children, and Mr J. Cook for J. H. Hosking (the trustee). Mr Woodhouss, in opening tho case, said this was ii suit brought by Mrs Chaffey, formerly Miss Ada Maud "Webster BuUcr-trorf-h, for the rectification, in two particulars, of a marriage eettleraoeit. Tins settlement was entirely of the lady's property. Tho husband brought nothing into the settlement. What the property consisted of was set .out in tho recitals of tho settlement. Shortly put, Mrs Chaffej had a life interest under her father's will. In Hie event of her marriage the trustee had to settle that Mfe estate in iho most suitable way to give Mrs Chaffey enjoyment of H for life. Mrs Chaffey ftlpo had interests that, cam© from various relatives, and. some of these were really vested. One—under tho will of her uncle, Thomas Bulterworth—was a reversion. This was really the property Chaffey had at the time tho settlement ww made. The Bcttlercont, b&?i(Je3 speaking of the Mfe estate under Mt Butterrworih'o will and the other property, also purported to speak of ateacquired property which might come to Mrs Chaffey. Tho particular points to which his Honor's attention would be directed woro clause C, which oontaincd limitations in tho event of thero being no children of tho mari riflge. and which it was asked might be rectified, and the clause having reference to afteracquired property. Mrs Chaffey said she did not know this was in the pottlemont. Mrs Chaffey was the ascond daughter of the la-lo Mr J. L. Buttccvporth, and had two sisters, one older and one younger than herself. Sho had also two brothers, both oldoT than herwit. Mrs Chaffoy's father died in 1890, Mrs Buttorworth having died some veaxs before. After her father's death Mrs Chaffey, Ihen Miss Butterworlh, lived with various relatives ,'or eome time, and would tell (he oourt she was very imperfectly acquainted With what her means or expectations wore. She knew slw was getting something from he? father'a estate, and she knew there was u reversion falling to htr from Mt Thomas Lutterworth's erMo. Mrs Chaffey eamo from Wellington to Dimedin to got married in lfj9, and tho suggestion of the settlement, in view of her marriage, then made was the first sho heard of it. She was told that Mr Hiking was preparing the settlement, and would do what was necessary. She did not O'etnte any terms. They wore not discus Fed. uhs had fc conversation with her brother Ham afterwards, and the question was wj«d_as to what was to become of her propcrty in the event of her having no children, avd tho idea was Urol it should go to Mrs Chaffev's younger sister. Afto discussion JI.TS Chaffey B g r6 o<l that if eho had no children of hor own sho would leave the property 10 her younger sister, now lira Stanley Biitchelor. Mr Chaffey mid he did not wish 1 " "KVO any interest in the properly. Mrs Chaffey went lo Mr Homing's office witli her brother, Mr Charles Butterworth, and a, rtmft settlement' was read over to her. Th» effect of it was not explained lo her, and She (lid not understand it at all. She did not know it covered any future property Mo might acquire. '' Evidence ins riven by Ada Maud Webster Uwmcy. Leslie E. Chaffey, and others. At. 4.00 p.m. the evidence was completed, mid legal argument in the ease wo® ordered to fio ':d ovor till tho following moraine at 11 o clock.