COMPLICATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1974, 3 February 1914, Page 4

COMPLICATIONS.

THREE JIAMIAGfiS'AND'A WILL, (By Telegraph.—Press Association,! "' ... Auokfa.fftf) February 2. , "A complicated .set of .GirciimsWiiees were revealed in! a tyill case, brought before "Mr'.. Justice . Obo\»er at tho Supfomo Court this morning.' Application was raado for,An order decl'arrng Annie A, Henley intestate, arid appointing .Alexander , ■ Henleyi , her husuand, administrator of. the estate. It was shown in evidenso thai deceased had been three times married, but no proof of tho validity .of the two latt&r, marriages was available. The first husband went to. Australia, tberp being no' issue of the marriage, and) after a continued absence and under the belief that ho had died, deceased went through a. form of marriage witTi another man. Tho .parties lived together for same years, and four children were bom. Then they were involved in some domestic disputes at Wan.gahui. resulting hi a. separation order, and it was later discovered that the- first husband was alive in Sydnoy. That was iii 1903 or 1904. The marriage between, plaintiff' and deceased took" plaae sqme seven years later. One child was born and deceased, Annie Henley, died ifl Jttjy last year. The property in the estate is estimated at £1200. Deceased made a will in 1908, leaving the property tn plaintiff and the children of the- second marriage, but this document she revoked by a will in 190.9. She ; then got possession of tho later due from her solicitor, and apparently destroyed it. In 1912 sho gave instructions "for. a new will to be prepafedj but this was never signed. A declaration of intestacy was therefore asked for. Th<j four children of the secotad marriage and the child, of the third were joined as defendants. . '

. His Honour pointed out that the difficulty to bo faced was t-Be. validity of the marriage between plaintiff oM' deceased. If tho first husband was- deg<l at the tiino of the second marfkge 3 the second husband, .who was still alive, was the legalwidower, but, if he was alive then and' still surviving at the time of the third marriage-i'tho plaintiff and liis child, wore out of. Court. There was evidence to show'that'he was alive when the second marriage was contract ed, though there wss .tho, honest Islief that he was dead. There was, howeverno evidence at all to show.whether hi was still living when ;tho'third marriage took _ place.'. ■ Evidence- on. that, point was important, and'he. suggested that the case bo adjourned for further in* guides to,be made* ''....» . Counsel adopted the suggestion.