DISPOSAL OF BIG ESTATE

Taranaki Daily News, 18 August 1934, Page 9

DISPOSAL OF BIG ESTATE

AMOUNT INVOLVED £75,000 CAPTAIN JAMES SMITH’S BEQUEST. CHARITIES INCLUDED IN LEGACY. NEXT-OF-KIN DISPUTING THE CASE By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. The disposal of £75,000 was at issue to-day in a legal action in the Supreme Court betfore Mr. Justice Herdman, who reserved his decision. The parties to the action are the New Zealand Insurance Company, as plaintiff (represented by Messrs. R. McVeagh and E. Inder), the Attorney-General and various charitable, benevolent or other institutions (represented by Messrs. V. R. Meredith and F. McCarthy), and the next of kin of Catherine Smith, deceased (represented by Messrs. H. F. Rogerson and W. S. Spence). Mrs. Smith, widow of Captain James Smith, died in Auckland and left estate valued at £126,000. In her will she left legacies to relatives and various charitable and benevolent institutions amounting to approximately £28,000. The New Zealand -Insurance Company was appointed executors, and the testatrix set out that the residue from the estate, amounting to approximately £76,000, was to be disposed of among such institutions, charitable, benevolent, religious, or otherwise, as the trustees thought fit. Mr. Roberson, for the next of kin, submitted that the trust was not a charitable trust and consequently was void, and that therefore there was an intestacy of £75,000. Mr. Inder said the will was made on September 23, 1930, and the testatrix died on August 12, 1933. The will included a series of bequests to relatives and a number of bequests to religious, charitable and benevolent institutions amounting in all to some thousands of pounds. In a clause in the will it was provided that the residue of the estate, after certain bequests had been provided for, was to be applied by the trustees to societies, institutions; or objects established in or about Auckland, for charitable, benevolent or religious institutions, or education purposes. Mr. Inder said that after the various duties had been paid, relatives’ legacies and charitable bequests amounting to £21,300 and a fund for minors amounting to £6500 provided for, and administration expenses paid, the balance of the estate to be dealt with as residue was £75,961 12s lid. The three questions the Court was asked to decide concerned the residue of the estate only and were: (1) Is the bequest a valid and enforceable bequest; (2) If the answer is in the negative is there an intestacy? (3) If there is an intestacy, who is entitled to benefit? Mr. McVeagh said he did not think there would have been any difficulty had the word “benevolent” not been used. The word “benevolent” meant something more than' charitable. If a man. left a sum of money to a racing club to be allotted as a prize for a certain race such' might be a benevolent action, but it could hardly be called, charitable.

His Honour: If -the -money was to be given to those who back losers it might be. (Laughter.) The next-of-kin held that the clause providing that this did not create a charitable trust and was therefore void. The trustee brought the action to test the validity of the claim.