DIVISION OF ESTATE

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23965, 4 June 1943, Page 3

DIVISION OF ESTATE

EXTRA SHARE GRANTED DAUGHTER Daisy Ella Jones, wife of. Cecil Christopher Jones, carpenter, of Raugiora. was the plaintiff in a matter under the Family Protection Act, 1908, which was heard in Christchurch yesterday by Mr Justice Northcroft. The estate concerned was that of her father. Robert Kingsbury, retired farmer, late of Rangiora. Leslie Onslow Kingsbuy. her brother, and other beneficiaries were joined as defendants. The Court awarded her £OOO from the brother’s portion. It was submitted by Mr W. R. Lascelles for the plaintiff that her father had failed in his moral duty inasmuch as he had not made just and adequate provision for her. The testator, who died on December 13, 1940, aged 81, had left approximately £18,650 before death duties had been taken from tile estate. L, O. Kingsbury, an unmarried son of the testator, had received £5502. To Edith May Mavfield, his housekeeper, the testator had left £1551. Ivy May Allen, a daughter, had received £165, in addition to being a residuary beneficiary with others who shared £7218 among them. The plaintiff did not object to some allowance being made for Miss Mayfield, said counsel, as for six years and a half she had looked after the testator. Nevertheless, she thought she had been liberally treated. The lion’s share of the estate had fallen to L. O. Kingsbury, who was now aged 50. It was realised, too, that he was entitled to special consideration as he had worked for his father, and was subsequently admitted to partnership. The plaintiff was 38 years old, the mother of four children, and her husband was in poor health. She had no savings, and had contracted about £4OO in debts. On leaving school she had worked at home without receiving wages, also she had cared for her father during several illnesses. As she had always been a dutiful daughter, and was now in struggling circumstances, counsel submitted that'she was entitled to further consideration. x . Mr G. G. Lockwood, who represented the trustees of the estate (L. O. Kingsbury, Edward Dallas Ridley Smith, and Moses Hughes) stated that the residuary legatees would receive £3OO each immediately, and an additional £350 at a later date. The trustees, he added, had done everything possible to expedite proceedings. Mr M. J. Gresson, who appeared for Kingsbury in his capacity as legatee, said his client was entitled to a substantial share of the estate, and he pointed out that the will had been prepared with obvious care. On leaving school at 14, Kingsbury had worked for his father and received no wages until he was 22. In fact, he had worked on the farm for 20 years, and during that period hbfather had not been charged with any management expenses. On behalf of Edith May Mayfield, Mr hj. S. Bowie opposed an order on the ground that after he had undergone an operation the plaintiff’s husband would be in a position to earn. . Dr. A. L. Haslam appeared on behalf of the other beneficiaries, adults and infants. . , , . His Honour said he had reached the viewithat perhaps it was the duty of the Court to take up the breach of duty on the part of the tesator and make some further provision for the plaintiff. He commented on the fact that the son, L. O. Kingsbury, had fairly discharged his duty to his father. He directed, Tiowever that £6OO should be taken from the gifts to him which, in the judge’s opinion, would only slightly diminish his inheritance He thought It wrong to place the Incidence elsewhere.