Royal Herbert Scutts 1905-1995

Note [The Sydney Morning Herald Thursday 2 April 1936 SCUTTS-BRIERLEY. MISS Jean Brierley, only child of Mr. & Mrs. Clive Weir Brierley, of Blackwood Avenue, Dulwich Hill, formerly of Grenfell, was recently married to Mr Roy Herbert Scutts, second son of Mr. & Mrs. H.A. Scutts, of La Lasca, New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill, at St. Clement's Church. Canon Denman officiated. The bride, who was given away by her cousin, Mr. Frederick Moore, in the absence from Sydney of her father, wore a frock of yachtsman blue crepe musette, with an inlet vest of navy pleated georgette, and a navy halo hat and accessories. Miss Dorothy Scutts, sister of the bridegroom, who was bridesmaid, wore frock of navy cloque designed with a tunic and relieved with magnolia satin. Her navy halo hat was of velvet. Mr. W. Scutts, brother of the bridegroom, was best man. A reception was held in the Blue Room at Usher's Hotel, following the ceremony. The guests were received by the bride's mother, ( Alice ) who wore a frock of navy grandola and rust-red georgette and a navy velourhat. She added a shoulder spray of rust-red carnations. When leaving for the honeymoon, which was spent at Wyong, the bride wore an ensemble of blue lightweight woollen material cut on military lines and a navy blue hat.] [Scutts, Roy Herbert (retail confectioner) :Service Number - NX4970 :Date of birth - 09 Jun 1905 :Place of birth - Leichhardt, NSW :Place of enlistment - Marrickville, NSW :Next of Kin - Scutts, Jean (wife). Contents date range 1939-1948.] [R H S & J M S living in 1939 at 379 New Canterbury Road, Dulwich Hill, NSW.] [The Canberra Times Saturday 26 October 1946 - DAUGHTER-IN-LAW NOT TO BENEFIT, SYDNEY. The Equity Court held today that a Sydney builder, "who left �45,000, was "entitled to tie up a �12,000 bequest so that a daughter-in-law could not benefit. The will of the builder, Henry Albert Scutts, contained an express wish that "the present wife of my son, Royal Herbert Scutts, shall take no benefit whatever under my will." Benefits to Royal Herbert Scutts involving about �12,000, were left upon trust as life interests only but were to pass to him absolutely should he divorce his wife or should his wife die before him. The court was asked to determine the validity of both these provisos. Mr. Justice Nicholas declared invalid the clause referring to divorce on the ground that it offered inducement to the son to divorce his wife if occasion offered and was, therefore, contrary to public policy. He held however that the second proviso was valid.]