SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3177, 24 March 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT WELLINGTON. CITY v. BOROUGH I ; v- . LPEE' PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLIiN'CrIUiN, March 23. Litigation in 'connection with the financial adjustment between the Wellington City Council and the ivarori Borough' Council came before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday, when his- Honor decided that the Supremo Court had no jurisdiction .to answer questions put to it. In giving his decision his Honor said lie had no power to express any 1 opinion under the Declaratory Judgments Act, as asked. The position 'Hvas this: A portion, of the lierough of Karori had been added to the City of Wellington. The two bodies did." not agree as to the adjustment of property and liabilities. In default of an agreement the statute provides that it shall be lawful for the Governor to make an adjustment. The Governor assumed that power, and appointed a commissioner to collect evidence' and submit an opinion. The' report had been made, but it had not so far been approved by the, Governor. What was asked was that the Supreme Court should intervene, and direct the. Commissioner as to what he should have clone. His Honor was not' aware that he had any power to do l this. r.*e could only say that the Court had’ no lJurisdiction to answer questions. The ' summonses would be dismissed, with Co 5s costs. INTERPRETATION OF A WILL. A reserved judgment was given by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday morning on a summons tor an’ interpretation of the will of Frederick Gerard Reichandt Roach, late of Wellington, The plaintiff was Henry Wright administrator, and the defendants were Eva Roach and Frederick Vivian Connolly, warehouseman, executors of the will. Questions 1 and 2 and the answers were as follows: (1) Are the policy moneys received by the executors (£1000) in respect of a policy in the New York Life Insurance Department liable to be applied in paymerit of the debts of tho deceased ! ISo (2) Should the assets of the estate be marshalled and the funeral and testamentary expenses be paid out of these moneys' in exoneration of the residue of deceased’s estate available for his creditors?—No. In answer to other questions, his Honor said that as the appointment in' this case was a statutory officer who was appointed to administer the estate according to law, the doctrine of marshalling adopted in the Victorian cases did not apply, the original executors of the policy moneys, who had collected and deposited these sums before the appointment of Wright remained' the trustees of these moneys. He held that the policy .moneys should bear the funeral and testamentary expenses of the deceased prior to the appointment of Wright, and also the succession duty chargeable on these moneys. Each party should pay its own costs