APPEAL COURT. Wellington, May 9.

Otago Witness, Issue 1994, 12 May 1892, Page 15

APPEAL COURT. Wellington, May 9.

In the Appeal Court to-day the case of Robertson v. Howden and others was begun. This was an appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Williams. The action in tho Supreme Court in which fhe decision appealed from was given was one in which the appellants, Mary Jane Frances Robertson and Frank Robertson, were plaintiffs, and Messrs Haggitt, Kitchen, Howden, Larnach, and the Perpetual Trustees, Estate, and Agency Company (Limited) were defendants. Mr Robertson, husband of plaintiff Mrs Robertson, was married to her in Scotland, and upon the marriage a Scotch settlement was made, undor which certain property brought in by Mrs Robertson was vested in Scotch trustees upon certain trusts in favour of herself, her husband, and the children of the marriage ; and Robertson for this part covenanted that upon his return to New Zealand, where ho had previously resided, he would pay the 6um of LSOOO to certain persons named in tho settlement, to bo held by them upon tho same trusts ns those upon which, the property brought in by hie wife was to bo held by the Scotch trustees. After the marriage, and having returned to New Zealand, Robertsoh, in August 1875, by a deed of English form, assigned the defendants, other than the Perpetual Trustees Company, a sum of L6OOO, to hold upon the trusts set out in the Scotch settlement. Assignment was made to defendants aforesaid because 'the persons named in the - Scotch settlement as trustees of the LSOOO to be paid by Robertson had declined to act. Defendants thus appointed trustees by Robertson invested L4ooo— part of LSOOO entrusted to them — upon a security at Blueskin, which subsequently proved to be, or became, wholly insufficient, and the L4OOO was lost. The Perpetual Trustees, Estate, and Agency Company were afterwards appointed trustees in place of the other . defendants, -and were merely formal parties in those proceedings. Robertson himself died some time ago, and this action was brought by his widow and eldest son against defendants, other than the company, claiming that they should make good the L4OOO. The Scotch settlement contained an immunity or indemnity clause in favour of the trustees acting under its provisions. The principal questions in dispute were whether the portion of the Scotch settlement which related to the trust of LSOOO to be paid by Robertson ought to be construed according to Scotch law or according to English law, as administered in New Zealand ; wheiher defendants were entitled to tho benefit of the immunity clause contained in the Scotch settlement ; and whether under terms of that clause as construed in Scotland defendants were -upon the facts of the case exempted from liability, the rules of the Scotch courts as to investments by trustees* being apparently leps strict than the rules of the Court of Chancery in England. Mr Justice Williams decided all these questions in favour of defendant, and held that they were not liable, and it was upon these points that the appeal was now brought. Mr Jellicoe for appellants, Sir Robert Stout for Messrs Haggitt and Kitchen, Mr Hosking for Messrs Howden and Larnach, and Mr Woodhouse for the Perpetual Trustees Company. Argument for appellants had not concluded when the court rose.

May 10. Argument in the case of Robertson and Howden was continued in tho Court of Appeal all day. Mr Jellicoe was still addressing the court for appellant when it rose for the day.

4

k