MANY BEQUESTS FROM WEALTHY WAIRARAPA ESTATE ANNOUNCED

Wanganui Chronicle, 24 March 1950, Page 6

MANY BEQUESTS FROM WEALTHY WAIRARAPA ESTATE ANNOUNCED

WELLINGTON, March 20. (PA).— “This is a case in which the court should not reserve its decision and I propose to approve the scheme submitted,’’ said Mr. Justice Hay, in the Supreme Court today. His Honour issued an order that the proposed distribution of the estate of £55,000 was valid. The exercise of discretion was conferred upon the trustees by the will of Mr. William Edward Bidwell, a farmer of Rototawai, Wairarapa, who died in 1933. His Honour praised the generosity of the testator and the wise allocation of the estate by the trustees. Mr. H. R. C Wild, for the Trustees said the will had stated that the residue of the estate should go to public charitable institutions purposes and objects within the Trustees discreition.' The testator s widow died in November, 1948, and subsequently the trustees had drawn up a scheme for the distribution of the money. The Attorney-General, was the nominal defendant. An affidavit produced in Court showed the following proposed gifts. Wellington Diocesan Board of trustees, £5OOO for the repair and maintenance of St. Johns Church, Featherston, the Order of St. John, £2500, the Wairarapa Centre of the N.Z. Red Cross Society £2500, Plunket Society (Masterton branch) £2500, Missions to Seamen (Wellington £2500, New Zealand Nurses Memorial fund £2500, Christs College. £7500, Victoria University College for the erection of a building for advancing educational recreation and intellectual training fostering university life and. ideals of students generally £lO,OOO, Wairarapa Hospital Board. £15,000, residue (£5OOO less costs) to the Salvation Army. “Many cases ef this nature are on the razors edge.’* said Mr. W, J. Byrne, who appeared for (he Attorney-Gen-eral as nominal defendant. It is often difficult to say with confidence whether a charity was a good or bad one, said the counsel. The law' gave extraordinary indulgence to testators in the disposal of their property for charitable purposes. Although he made a diligent search counsel said .he was unable to point to any exact precedent for the case before the court. Whether the applications had been reported, the schemes themselves had not been mentioned, only the decision as to whether proposed gifts had been for charitable purposes, said Mr. Byrne.