The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-08-07 00:00:00

A CURIOUS WILL.

In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, before
Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Mains, the cause of "Havelock
v. HavelocK—ln re Allan," has been heard.—We take the
following report from The Tirnev:—

An interesting question arises in this case respecting
the property of Sir Henry Havelock-Allan derived
under a curious will made by Mr. Robert Henry Allan
in January, 1879. By that will the testator, after
giving certain legacies and the interest of £40,000 Con-
sols to his wife for life, devised his Blackwell-hall
estate to his wife for life, his Gersby estate to his
brother, George Thomas Allan' for life; and, subject
to these life estates, he devised all his real and lease-
hold estates, which, with his personal estate thereby
bequeathed, amounted in value to not less than £500,000
sterling, for the benefit of his cousin, Sir Henry
Marslam Havelcck and his issue and relations in
manner thereinafter mentioned, "the said Sir H. M.
Havelock being a major-general in the Army, a Com-
panion of the Bath, the brave and worthy son of the
illustrious soldier, Sir Henry Havelock, whose wise
counsels and daring acts of heroism, and whose im-
petuous valour and desperate charges on the battle-
field, where he had six horses shot under him, and
who never attacked but to conquer, so largely contri-
buted to the overthrow of a brutal enemy that he may
be emphatically pronounced the Saviour of India.
And I thank my Blessed Redeemer for having ex-
perienced great and manifold blessings, but for
none more so than that the mantle of the father
should be permitted to descend upon the shoulders
of his equally brave, pious, and high-minded son."
The testator then described the way in which Sir
Henry M. Havelock was to enjoy the property.
He devised the whole of it to trustees upon trust to
receive the rents and profits for twenty-one years, and in-
vest the same in the purchase of other estates in the
county of Durham, and he requested that, in making
such purchases, as far as possible, lands might be
acquired in the neighbourhood of large, flourishing,
and increasing towns, and in the meantime, and until
the moneys should be so laid out, they were to be
invested and the dividends accumulated in the nature
of compound interest, and, after the expiration of
twenty-one years, the property was to be held upon
trust for Sir H. M. Havelock for life, and then for
Henry Spencer Havelock, his eldest son' for life,
and then for his first and other sons in tail male;
then to the second son of Sir Henry M. Havelock
for life, and to his first and other sons in tail ;
then to the other children of Sir H. M. Havelock
in the same manner; and then to the first and
other sons of Joshua Havelock in tail, with an ulti-
mate remainder to the right heirs of the late Colonel
William Havelock. The personal estate of the
testator was directed to be held upon similar trusts.
The will further contained a direction that every per-
son taking the estate should assume the name and
arms of Allan' and that if any one disputed any of
the trusts of the will, he should forfeit all interest
under it. The testator died in October, 1879. The
extent of his real estate was upwards of 4,000 acres,
and the present annual income derived from his
real and personal estate was more than £lO,OOO.
The two sons of Sir H. M. Havelock was now
aged eight and six years, and the eldest son of
Joshua Havelock, who would be entitled to the pro-
perty in tail upon the death, without children, of the
previous tenants for life, would be 21 in January next.
Thus it appeared that Sir H. M. Havelock, who was
the person the testator held out as the person to be
benefited, and who was now forty-nine years of age,
would receive none of the rents and profits for twenty-
one years, and the rents and profits, being accumu-
lated at compound interest for that period, would
amount, at 4 per cent., to about £311,200. In this
state of things an application was now made,
nominally for the infants, but, in fact, by Sir H. M.
Havelock, that he might receive a sum of £2,700 a
year out of the rents and profits for the maintenance
and bringing up of his children, or, if this could not be
done, that he might be appointed manager of his own
estates, at a salary of £2,700 a year.
Mr. J. Pearson, Q.C., and Mr. V. Hawkins ap-
peared in support of the application; Mr. Bristowe,
Q,C., and Mr. Romer for Sir H. M. Havelock (now
Sir IL M. Havelock-Allan) ; and Mr. Whitehorne for
the trustees.

All parties were desirous that the arrangement now
proposed should be carried out if the Court had power
to sanction it. _ _
__

Mr. Loc—ocii Webb, Q. C., and Mr Stallard appeared
for the eldest son of Mr. Joshua Havelock, who was
willing to accede to the application.
The Vice-Chancellor, after the case had proceeded
for some time, said the question was a very doubtful
one. He had never seen a more absurd will. Here
were children who, when they grew up, would be en-
titled to a very considerable Income, and the father,
who would be entitled to the property when he arrived
at the age of 70, had now but a very moderate income,
which was not sufficient to enable him to bring up his
children to fit them for the position in life which they
would have to sustain. In these circumstances, it was a
most desirable thing that some handsome allowance
should be made to Sir H. M Havelock-Allan out of the
rents and profits of the estate; but, with every wish to
carry out such an arrangement, he could not see his way at
present to sanction it. This was, in fact, an application
that the rents which the testator had directed to be
accumulated, and which, unfortunately, he had a
right to accumulate for twenty-one years, should not
be so accumulated, but that £7,300 a year only out of
the £lO,OOO should be accumulated. If any authority
could be shown for doing this he would cheerfully
follow it, because he believed that the proposal would
be beneficial to all parties concerned. His lordship
would wish to have the case further argued, and he
thought it would be better to postpone the hearing
until November next' but, in the meantime, he would
suggest that a sum of £1,500 should be paid at once
to Sir H. M. Havelock-Allan, without prejudice to
any decision that might be arrived at whtn the case
should be fully argued.