IN BANCO

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 29, 29 October 1919, Page 2

IN BANCO

A FARMER'S WILL

CLAIM FOR ADEQUATE PROVISION

Tn the Supreme Court in Banco yesterday His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard the ease of Hannah Mary Silvester, her son, and two daughters against the Public Trustee as exeeutov of the will of the late Frederick Silvester, of Innlia, Tnranaki, farmer. tinder his will the testator, who owned a small farm of 96 acres, left his widow an annuity "of ,£<lo per annum, and left one daughter (Mrs. Shearer) .£IOO and .£!t. r ift for her children, and to another daughter, Mrs. M'Kay, who had since died, he left .£IOO and a further ',£IOO for her daUßhter. The testator cut off his son and one daughter with a shilling each, and loft the balance of the property to nephews, nieces, and cousins in Australia. It was claimed by-the plain, tiffs that the will did not make adequate provision for the widow nud' the three children. The whole point turned on the valuo of the property, which accordinff to tho Government valuation was worth X 4140, and a professional valuer nlaccd the value at .£7000.. His Honour said the difference was very great. ■ It was remarked by counsel that Government valuations were notoriously on the low side. His Honour, in adjourning the case unlil Monday next, in order that tho Public Trustee might effect a sale as authorised in the will at a reasonable price, remarked that in his opinion too little allowance had' been mado to tho widow. Mr. T. Young appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. O.'E. Bowling''for tho Public Trustee, and Mr. H. E. Evans for Mrs. King, of Sydney, a niece of the testator. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. Yesterday afternoon His Honour Mr. .lustice llosking heard the case of Laurie v. Godfrey, a motion to enter judgment re the issues found by the jury on Ausust 22, 1918.' When the case was heard in tho Supreme Court it was alleged on behalf of-Catherine LauriV that 11. A. Godfrey, cf Mem Street, grocer, on or about Mav 7, 1918, did so negligently and unskilfully drive and control a motor lorn- at premises No. 1 Minerva Street that he caused a-chimney or a portion of.it to fall upon the plaintiff. Tho latter suffered considerable injury, and she claimed special damages for medical treatment and JC47I general damages. Godfrey denied that he negligently and unskilfully drove and controlled tho lorry nr that he caiised the chimney to fall on the plaintiff, and contended that tho injuries she received were caused by her owii negligence. Mr. T/Neave appeared tor Catherino Laurie and Mr. li. F. O'Lcary for H. Godfrey. A clothes-lino was attnehed to .the chimney, and stretched across, and it.was when the lorry ran into this that the chimney, an old' one, was brought down. The jury found that Godfreyi wi)s aware of the presence of tho clothesline. and that'ho . was. warned by the ulaintiff of the existence of the clothesline. Further, that he, guilty of nesligenco in going on with his car, but that, he could not have foreseen that by Koing on lie might bring down the chimnev as a probable result of his action. The jury awarded the plaintiff. Mrs. Laurie. .£3O medical expenses, and £") general damages.

After hearing argument, His Honour reserved his decision.