40 Mr Merralls said that, because it was thought that clause DD did not apply, it would be submitted in due course that the Court should exercise its power pursuant to s.63 of the Trustee Act 1958 (Vic) to confer on the Trustees a power to distribute the shares in specie. However Mr Merralls submitted that there was anther basis for a conclusion not only that the Trustees had the power to distribute the shares but also that they were bound to distribute them to the persons entitled to the net profits in the same proportions. He referred to the rule of construction, considered by the High Court in Congregational Union of New South Wales v Thistlethwayte[11], that an unlimited absolute gift of income is a gift of the capital from which the income is derived. Mr Merralls submitted that, because all interests in the net profits of the Sweeps business were presently vested and absolute interests, the same persons so entitled to the net profits were entitled to the capital or corpus from which the income was derived and in the same proportions. Mr Merralls accepted that this rule of construction applied subject to any contrary intention contained in the will but submitted that no such contrary intention was evinced by the will. As I understood Mr Merralls' argument, as it developed, the conclusion which he urged ultimately depended upon this submission and not upon finding any express trust in relation to corpus in the will, because, so Mr Merralls contended, there was no express trust to be found in the will in relation to the corpus of the Sweeps business other than in clause DD (which, he said, was inapplicable).