WHAT SHARE?

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 24, 13 September 1911, Page 8

WHAT SHARE?

IN MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT. PROMINENT PEOPLE IN CASE. A ease arising out of a marriage settlement, in which the principal ■ m ties are well-known'figures in society here and at Homo, came before Mr Justice Edwards at Auckland recently. The defendants wore Githa Enid Fergusson, of Auckland, wife of .lames Andrew Fergusson, a captain of His Majesty’s navy, and Thomas Coldhan. Williams, of Auckland, gentleman. The defendant, Githa Enid Fergusson, is a daughter of the defendant, T. C. Williams, and was loci to Ja.s. Andrew i< son in Scotland when she was under twentyone years of age. The plaint ill's were the trustees in Scotland for tho female defendant. They alleged that tho defendant, T. C. Williams, was not informed of the marriage settlement executed by bis daughter and ;er husband on their marriage. By this settlement the female defendant made over all her real and personal property, then belonging to her or which she might acquire, to tho trustees, for payment of the income of the trust funds and estate to herself

for her life, and after her death to her husband for his life, and after the deatli of the survivor the capital and income were for the issue of tho marriage. . The trustees, plaintiffs in tho case, were John George Alexander Fergusson, of Mnukirk, in Scotland, George James Ferguson Buchanan, of Auckentorlio, Bowling, in Scotland; and George Bcetham, of South Kensington. In the year 1901, the female defendant being then of full age, the defendant, T. C. Williams, by several deeds of gift, transferred to his children several blocks of the Wairarapa, Githa Enid Fergusson being given 1786 acres, subject to mortgage. The plaintiffs under the terms of tho marriage settlement, in which they were trustees, had required Mrs Fergusson to Transfer to • them The said land and stock thereon. She refused to do so, alleging she was incapable, by reason of her minority, of binding herself under the, provisions of tho marriage settlement, and that she was unaware that by such,settlement she purported to bind property she might thereafter acquire, and that the gift to her by her father was made by him in ignorance of that settlement. Tlio plaintiffs contended that none of the grounds of refusal were valid 'in law. Tho defendant after coming of ago did not repudiate or disaffirm tho contract, and now she had lost such right. They applied for the rectification of the transfer of the land in the Wairarapa. For the defendants it was contended that T. C. Williams was not informed nor was aware of the marriage settlement. Evidence was given by Mrs Fergusson to the effect that no one had read tho deed of settlement to her and that she did not understand it. She never thought about it until tho family solicitor, Mr Ernest Bell, asked her about it in 1907.' The property in tho Wairarapa was managed by her brothers. Both she and Captain Fer-gusson-Jia.d endeavoured to secure the revocation of.Aho settlement, but tho solict'uy >fjorp the trustees bad not acet pted tho view that it could In done When she signed the deed of settlement, she had nothing to settle nor did.she.'have anything until 1904, when lief- futlierXdivided his property. She had no idea the deed would bind property she Afterwards got, or prevent her dealing with if. After legal argument the case was adjourned sjno die to allow Captain ''ergnsson, who is now in Scotland, to ho made a party, when tho case will bo moved direct to the Court of Appeal. Mr. H. I). Bell, K.C., appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. J. R. Retd for the defendants.