A WILL CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 November 1921, Page 4

A WILL CASE.

WKDDINOTOX, Nov. 7

"Testator has been guilty ol such a breach of his moral duty as will warrant the Court’s action,” said Mr dustice Heed, itt giving judgment in a will case to-day. The facts were oi an extraordinary nature. When over seven tv vents ol age, testator mattieil a woman lorly-six years ol age. lie died within seven months ol the marriage, leaving his estate, with the exception of two small legacies totalling Lion, to her. The balance of the es-

tine, principally moi was swoinat IMII2O. The widow, who had no dependents, had a private estate valued at LSI I. Ily deceased’s first marriage there were eleven children, one ol whom bad obtained tin order ftom Lite Supreme Ci.urL for libs a week maintenance. Tbe present application wtis on behalf of live of Ihe ohildion for a share of the estate. One had six children, and her husband eat aid LI : week as a carpenter, and contributed to the support ul his mother. Ihe second had three children. He said be bad to live in a tent with Ids family, making a living by eutliug firewood. The thiid bad six children, ranging from lourtccn to t weiit\-seven rears. I let husband was a road labourer, earning L' I Is a week. She stated , bat wlicii any of the cldldrcn w ere out ot work or wanted a holiday, tho expense fell mi Iter and liei husband. The fourth was the wile ol a carpenter, who was a widower with three children. When she married him, her husband carnal LI 12s a week, from which Ins children had to he supported. The Ill'll, was a domestic servant in Melbourne, aged 111, who earned 1)1 a week. She had sail'd nothing. The widow defence to the application was that dining the last eighteen months slm bad sulleroil continuously from bad health, and in December, HUH, bail undergone a soi ions npoiatioii. I'or the last six i,ninths slic was under the rare ol two doctors, and had to undergo a further operation. Met* statements were confirmed by medical men, one ol whom stated that she would be unable to i at u her living in future.

Ilis Honour quoted the opinion of Mr .lustin' Edwards that it was the duty of the Court to place itself in position ot a testator, and to consider whether he had boon guilty of a manifest bieaeh of that moral duty which a first husband <u lather os.eil towards bis wife oi bis children, remembering that the Court could only imperfectly appreciate the testator's motives. He added that the widow’s income should not be materially trenched upon, owing to her .state ol health, hut some provision should be made lor the children to share in the ultimate d’strihulioii of the holly ol the estate. Ilis Honour directed that the sum of CbU) should bo paid to the Public Trustee, to be held by him in trust to pay the income arising fiom it to the widow during her lifetime, and at her deal It to be divided by the gilt ot L'.tOO to one iif the children, and 1)200 each to two of them, Cloo each to the remaining two. One of the children who received a legacy of LoO was ordered to be paid another Colb