FAMILY PROTECTION ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 17 July 1923, Page 4

FAMILY PROTECTION ACT

WIDOW'S C LAIM FOR FURTHER ALLOWANCE.

WELLINGTON, July IU.

Tlio .Supreme Court, beforu :i full Ucik.li, heard :m argument to-day in tlic < use of Alary Parish v. Albert Henry Parish and others, of a claim by a widow under flip Family Protection Act for further allowance Horn her deceased husband's estate than was given to her by her husband's will. The plaint ill' married her husband, who was a. widower wit h a grown-up family, when he was seventy-two years of age. Prior to her marriage she entered into an agreement hy deed with her husband, whereby she was not to receive more than £lOl > from her husband's estate on bis death. The husband, who died when he was seventysi c years of ago, left plaintiff £IOOO,

and divided the rest of the estate, valued at over £IO,OOO. equally among the children of the first marriage, i’liiintilf applied to the Court for further maintenance from the estate.

Mr Howe, who appeared for plaintiff

said that an important point involved uas whether a person could contract out of the benefits of the Family ITotetion Act. He contended that it was not possible for a person to do sn. 1 lie matter had been already judicially deeitled. and lie suggested that the widow should be given an allowance of at least C'2sf> a year.

Mr Sargent, for the defendant, said that plaintiff was hound by the terms of an ante-nuptial contract, and was not really entitled to anything more than £101)!) from her husband's estate. The Family I’rolectfim Act had no provision saying that the wife could not contract herself out of the provisions of the Act. I Mai lit iff was hound by her agreement nut to claim more than Mr Cornish, for eerraiu of the defendants. said that, looking at all the cireunistanees of the ease, the provision of £IOOO made hy the will for plaintiff was as much as she was entitled to. Decision was reserved, and the Court of Appeal adjourned till duly 10.