CIVIL BUSINESS.

Colonist, Volume LVII, Issue 13825, 21 July 1915, Page 2 (Supplement)

CIVIL BUSINESS.

The first civil case called upoi was an originating summons in the matter of the estate- ptMpses. Crewdv.-;«a, formerly of"'^^^ deceased—J Benson a^ci another, executors of iv> will, plaintiffs, v. Thomas Holmes ov i ollieis, defend^. appeam . f - plaintiffs, and the Hon. A. ~/ :'!fagin^ Sty! instructed by Messrs. unbend "nd' Co., solicitors, Borrow-r b trhess, England for the Holmes, sed i.■.■-■ i the .noit-ofJnn, and also, wstru M by Messrs: Knox,;: Pender,. ami > , $™ York for Eliza.Harvey- and < I'-^ Mr ■NSa&n^bft- Wellington, msti ; -|d Mr::Di Mi Finlay ; appeared fortho reSaifer trf the next^f-l«n ex^s^of Mary':Humphre^,.who,-w^^t repro-; sentiad. ■. =,-;:-.;.. ■.'.''.■„/,•,■■.' ■ - ' ■■;::;':

The principa) qaestion submitted for the consideratiQn^f the) Court was whether the breviers, and sisters of the deceased, who:died; prior to the testator were entitled Tinder the general devise in the. will in,, iegard to the residuary, estate. -' .: ..•;■ '.'.,.

, Mr; Fell, for the plaintiffs, submitted" that m regard to certain of the claim ants who cl ie^af% the testate tffe woula be no difficulty, but a qU6S tS might arise in Regard to the children of the deceased's brothers and sisters who predeceased the testator. He aC wished the Court to say that the costs, of the present proceedings should only be awarded against two-thirds of the estate, ami that the one-third devised •»* Beilson should not be liable. Mr Magmnity submitted that the principal question for^ decision by th& Court was as to tho rights of the children of tho brothers and sisters of fcho testator who predeceased him. He also agreed that regarding the share of the Holmes section, there would be no difncnlty .owmj.' to Margaret Holmes, tho claimant having survived tho testator llus would apply to the share of Marf Humphreys. He cited t]ie opinion of ■ }\ Bhsil?> XX} :> London, who advised that thoso chiiciien would participate to the extent of their deceased parent s shore. Mr Maginnity pointed; i out that tho N«w Zealand Administration Acts <hd not extend far enough to ueai with the position arisinc out of the adoS nt\ WllJ' he W^S toadopt the. reasoning of Mr Sharp as set Mr Nathan submitted authority and rpfnf ?h th\ar^^ that thecWkl len of those brothers and sisters who predeceased the testator were entitled to their respective- parents' shares On the question of costs, His Honour ordered thai, oosts should be allowed against th« two-thirds of the estate us oetween solicitor ami client. Judgment was reserved. ' to