GIFT OF £l00,000

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23013, 16 October 1936, Page 4

GIFT OF £loo,ooo

PROBLEM FOR EQUITY COURT 'From Our Own Correspondent) SYDNEY, Oct. 2. A problem involving the gift of £IOO,OOO is engaging the attention of a Sydney Equity Court. Three sisters desire to give their brother a life interest in that amount, and are trying to find how they can legally do so. They are seeking to make a voluntary alienation of this sum, which is portion of a fortune of £400,000, but intricate questions of law arise. Originally, under the wills of their grandfather, Thomas Carleton Scarrett, who died 25 years ago, and their mother, Emily Carleton M'Quade, the four children were left a life interest in £400.000 in eaual shares. These interests were subject to a forfeiture clause contained in Mrs M'Quade's will, under which they were to lose their benefit if they made any attempt to alienate their share, charge against it, or anticipate it. Evidence was before the court that the son Frederick M'Quade, had, many years ago, charged his interest as collateral security on a mortgage. Ten years later, after he had satisfied the debt in full, the question of whether he had committed a technical breach of the terms of his mother's will came

before the High Court, which held that he had made a charge on his interest, and therefore forfeited his interest in his share.

His sister, Mrs Mary Ellen Morgan, Mrs Minnie Thelma Long Innes, and Lady Emily Carleton Holderness, residents of England, then became beneficiaries of his share in addition to their own. Following the High Court's decision, which was in 1927, the sisters expressed a desire to return their brother's share to him. Numerous legal conferences have followed, and the court has been approached twice for assistance. One question which arose was whether by alienating this portion of the estate to their brother the three sisters themselves would commit a breach of the terms of the will, and lose their interests. The court was asked, several months ago, to exercise a special discretion, allowing the sisters to make the voluntary alienation. Then a question of jurisdiction

arose, and this, it is hoped, will now be settled by the Equity Court, which was informed that all parties to the litigation were desirous that the alienation should be made. On the -question of jurisdiction, counsellor the three sisters said that the trustees were resident in New South Wales, the whole of the assets were here, and the trust had always been administered in New South Wales.