SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17179, 24 October 1923, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

INTERPRETATION OF WILL. His Honor Jlr Justice Sim, in tHs Supreme Court to-day, heard an applioation for the interpretation of the will of the late .Robert Halswell Wood, J apauui, retired farmer. John Hamilton Miles, of Marton, administrator of the estate of tho late Kathleen May Miles, a beneficiary under the will, was plaintiff. The defendants were : man Lindsay Macbeth, Christchurch, accountant, and Robert E. Wood, of Melbourne, company manager, executors of the will; Elisabeth Annie Wood, Christchurch, the testator’s widow: R°b£ rt E. Wood, Frederick J. Wood! of Perth, West Australia, company manager; Percy H. Wood, of MaJton, land agent; Leslie H. Wood. Wellinwton, merchant’s agent; Cecil W- Wood, Christchurch, architect; Amv Agnes Fair hurst, Christchurch; lan Hamilton Tiles. Margaret Harwell Miles and Janet Haswell Miles, children, of Kathleen May Miles; and Malcolm L. Macb©th, wool buyer, and Alister L. Macbeth motor mechanic, children of the late Lily F. Macbeth. m Plaintiff applied for an interpretation to determine the following questions : (1) M betlier the residuary gifts to the testator’s eight sons and daughters vested on the testator’s death, to the payment of nn annuity of £3OO to the widow, or whether those gifts , vested on the widow’s death P (2) IF the gifts vested on the testator’s death were the beneficiaries entitled to the surplus income after payment of the annuity? If the gifts did not- vest until the widow’s death, who was entitled to the surplus income not specificially disposed of by the will? Mr H. Johnston (Wellington) appeared for the plaintiff. Mr K- Noave for Norman Lindsay Macbeth, as* trustee and executor under the testator’s will, Mr W. R. Lascelies for Elizabeth Annie Wood and Mr O T- J. Alpers for N. L. Macbeth, as trustee of the estate of his wife, Lilly F. Macbeth, and for N. L. Macbeth’s two sons, jVT- L. Macbeth and A. L. Macbeth. Mr Johnston said that the important question was as to the disposal of the surplus income now earned by the estate, after the payment of the annuity left to widow- The income was about £7OO a year, and, as the annuity was £3OO, the surplus was about £4OO. i which the trustee was accumulating, on the grounds, counsel understood, that the income, by the will, was to be accumulated until the death of the annuitant, and that he was entitled to withhold the income because there were contingent liabilities, for which he was accumulating ifc. The whole estate consisted of a property, which it had been agreed to sell for £20,000; there was a mortgage over it for about half that sum. It might be presumed that the oroperty itself was quite sufficient, unless there had been an enormous droo. to meet tho contingent liability. The estate at present was paving income tax on the total of th** whole income as one income. Jf the income was distributed there would be no income tax on it. Mr Alpers said that the will obviouslv was a home-made one, but it was mode by a business man with considerable sbr©wdn*-sR. The testator’s idea was to give his widow a suKstontiaT an- < rmitv, and to b«ve a general wa«h-un j atjher d°eth. That wp* the dominant I id«a. in his m»'nd wb**o b© made bis I WIH . soon IWoro bis do a +h. Mr Johrs+oT. «mid that the “ : lieent lavman ’’ ‘K-eri two-no-hi. for- i ward perpjn r but °d +o read into th« w-rp iutellimMo -prinoinlos. His Honor rmmm-d b-ic decision.