T C HORNBY Vs. E T FARMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an originating summons taken out by the trustees of a trust instrument. The defendants are three in number. The first defendant Mrs. E.T. Farmer was at one time the wife of one Mr. Gardner, deceased, a principal director of the defendant No. 3 Kettlewcll Bullen and Company Limited. The second defendant is a company appointed executors under the will of the said Mr. Gardner. The third defendant is a company which acts as the managing agent of many industrial concerns of repute.

(2.) The central question in this summons is whether or not the 1st defendant is entitled to any benefits under a trust created by the third defendant on 25-11-1949, the object whereof was to provide for and pay to the said Mr. Gardner a pension for life and other benefits for himself and his wife. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff put the case very fairly. He cited authorities both in favour of the first defendant and against her and so did counsel for the third defendant. In fact, counsel for the defendant No. 1 had very little submission to make in view of the arguments already addressed to the Court. Counsel for the second defendant said that his client was leaving the matter to the Court and had no particular sbumission to put forward.

(3.) The facts are few and not in dispute. Mr. Gardner had for many years past rendered valuable service to the third defendant in recognition whereof the deed of trust was executed. At the time of the execution of the same, the first defendant was the wife of Mr. Gardner. This marriage was dissolved by a court of law in the year 1955. In 1956 the former Mrs. Gardner remarried and became Mrs. Farmer. On 8-3-1956, Mr. Gardner made a Will appointing the second defendant as executors to it and providing for substantial benefits for Mrs. Farmer. Mr. Gardner died in July 1957.