IMPORTANT POINT

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 48, 25 August 1933, Page 9

IMPORTANT POINT

CASE FOR APPEAL COURT

FAMILY PROTECTION ORDERS

Stating that the case raised an important point, and upon counsel raising no objection, Mr. Justice lieed iv. the Supreme Court today moved into tho Court of Appeal for argument an. application on behalf of Sarah Jane Seymour, widow, of London, for an order reducing the allowance of £350 a. year granted to Mrs. Clara Maude Preston, of Sussex, England, out of the estate of the late Edward William Roper.

The question referred to by his Honour was whether, when a case of this kind came up for review, the Court was at liberty to look at it as being a case de uovo with the estate in the financial position as^ou the date of application, or whether it was bound to try and discover upon what principle the original order was made aud iUun simply apply the National Expenditure] Adjustment Act, 1932, to a reduction in accordance with that principle. His Honour said he did not wish to shirk his responsibilities. After hearing argument he was quite prepared ot give his views, but he thought the question was one which should be dealt with by the Court of Appeal. Much interest was attached to the case when it came before the late Chief Justice, Sir Charles Skerrett, originally in 1927, as the decision had an important bearing on the question of domicile. The late Edward William Roper, of Christehureh and England, died in London on October i, 1920, leaving certain personal property in. the British Isles and also substantial personal and real property in New Zealand. Clara, Maude Preston, as the sole surviving! daughter of the testator, applied to the Supreme Court for better provision to be made for her out of her father's estate, and Sir Charles Skerrett niado an order under the Family Protection Act granting' Mrs. Preston an allowance of £350 a year. It was this order that was the subject of Mrs. Seymour s application today, she being the executrix of the British Isles property^ who originally received nine-tenths ot thn income of the testator's residuary estate. . Mrs. Seymour's application for an order reducing Mrs. Preston's allowance was based on the ground of Laraship. In an affidavit she said that as a result of diminution of income -from the residuary estate, Mrs. 'rcstou's ; proportion of the net annual income ! was now more than one-half, and her I own proportion was only a little morethan one-third. Apart from the income received from the estate, Mrs. Seymour said her income was very limited, bhc applied to have Mrs. Preston's allowance reduced to the same proportion of the income of tho estate as existed when the order was made in 19*7, or otherwise reduced as the Court ShAn affidavit "filed by Mrs. Preston opposed the application. She said that any reduction of her allowance would be a serious hardship to her. Tho case will be heard at, the next sitting of the Court o£ Appeal, opening on September 18. Mr O A. L. Treadwell appeared for Mrs.'Seymour, Mr. C. W. Nielsen tor Mrs. Preston, and Mr. P. B. Broad for the Public Trustee.