Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

INTERPRETATION OF WILL

ACTION IN SUPREME COURT HIS HONOR RESERVES DECISION His Honor Mr Justice Kennedy was engaged in the Supreme Court yesterday morning with the hearing of an originating summons to obtain an interpretation of the will of William Hoole. The action was brought by the New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd., for whom Mr M. Joel appeared, Mr J. M. Paterson representing six defendants —James Hoole, William Hoole. Frank Hoole, Thomas Hoole, Martha Rushtou and Ethel Cummings (children of the deceased) —and Mr J. S. Sinclair four other defendants —Frank Christopher Hoole, Ray William Hoole, George Harold Hoole and Ethel Catherine Hoole, grandchildren of the deceased and children of Christopher Hoole, also deceased. The amount of the estate involved was £2078 18s Gd, less real property to the value of £6OO specifically devised to the defendant Mrs Cummings.

The testator died in October, 1934, and his will was proved in the following month, the plaintiff, company being named sole executor and trustee. The testator, who was 64 years of age at the time of his death, was predeceased by his .wife and one child, the remaining six children being the first-named defendants. The. seventh child, who died at the age of 34 years, left a family of four infant children, who were the four defendants last-named." The question that the court was asked to decide was whether under the provisions of the will the infant defendants took any share of the estate and if so what share. The summons was taken out by the executor to enable this question to be settled as between the 10 defendants.

In stating his case Mr Joel emphasised the fact that the trustee had, of course, no interest in the matter beyond having his position clarified, and he therefore proposed to leave his learned friends to argue the question of law involved.

After Mr Paterson and Mr Sinclair had addressed the court on the legal aspects of the case his Honor intimated that he would take time to consider his judgment.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT19350913.2.18

Bibliographic details

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22675, 13 September 1935, Page 4

Word Count
338

INTERPRETATION OF WILL Otago Daily Times, Issue 22675, 13 September 1935, Page 4

INTERPRETATION OF WILL Otago Daily Times, Issue 22675, 13 September 1935, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert