BEQUEST UNDER WILL

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20260, 21 March 1934, Page 7

BEQUEST UNDER WILL

Action by Church Property Trustees. An originating summons to determine what should become of £2769, left under the will of the late Ada Taylor, spinster, was heard before Mr Justice Johnston in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr A. C. Cottrell appeared for the plaintiffs (the Church Property Trustees) ; Mr Russell for the defendants (the trustees of the estate, Messrs J. 11. Seager and W. C. Collins) ; and Mr J. D. Godfrey for the next of kin (to be ascertained). After evidence had been heard, his Honor found that the bequest of the residuary estate was not a good and valid one, and the property would accordingly be handed back to the trustees. Mr Cottrell said that the testatrix made her will on December 14, 1905, and left all her property to relatives in New Zealand. After the death of her relatives she left the residuary estate to the Church Property Trustees upon trust for such charitable, benevolent, deserving or laudable objects as the trustees should think fit. By a codicil made on April 22, 1910, she directed that the income from the residuary estate should be spent in the Annat educational district only. All the relatives were dead. The fund was transferred to the Church Property Trustees in 1933, and the question before the Court was whether the bequest was a good, charitable one. Matter Considered Settled. The matter had been considered settled because the relatives of the testatrix had all died without leaving issue and the residuary estate had been handed over to the Church Property Trustees, said counsel. The Church Property Trustees, however, -were puzzled by the wording of the codicil and they referred the matter to their solicitor, who found that it was questionable whether the bequest was a good one. Mr Cottrell- submitted that the trustees had been required to hand over the capital and any accrued income to the 'Church Property Trustees, but the Church Property Trustees could only spend the income. The facts of the case were set out in an affidavit filed by Leslie William Broadhead (church steward). In summing up, his Honor said he had a clear opinion as to the validity of the gift to plaintiffs and there would be no advantage in reserving judgment. In his opinion the case could not be taken out of the case of Brown and Knowles and the arguments set out in the law reports on that case would apply in the present case. The only doubt was whether the AttorneyGeneral should have been joined, and subject to that he would ask counsel for the plaintiffs to send the papers to the Attorney-General. When a fund was left for purposes, some of which were charitable and some of which, however laudable, were not charitable according to the authorities, the whole gift failed because there was no means of determining how the bequest was to be distributed between the legal and illegal objects. The judgment was that the bequest of the residuary estate was net a good and valid one, and the property would be handed back to the trustees under the will.