FAMILY PROTECTION ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 6 August 1927, Page 1

FAMILY PROTECTION ACT

WELLINGTON. An- ! Edward William Roper, who was to spend many prosperous years in Canterbury as a general merchant, came to New Zealand with his wife in the sixties with money supplied by liis wife’s family. He entered business at Lyttelton, and at the time of his death in 1020 bis estate stood at over £20.001). Last year it was £28,668. In 1873 Roper’s wife and three children were sent Home, and soon after their arrival Hi’s Roper lost her reason, and until her death thirty-five years later was in an asylum. The children lived with the grandmother and Hr Roper desired them to return. Their grandmother would not permit them to do so. because of her disapproval of the marriage. Nevertheless, their relations continued on an affectionate basis, and when he left New Zealand in 190 G to tour the world he had frequently written to his only surviving child, a daughter, now Airs Clara Maude Preston. Roper died in London in 19*20, making his will there and leaving ninetenths of the annual income from his estate to a Airs Sarah Jane Seymour, whom he had met in England. After her death £BOO per annum was to go to her son, William Turnbull Seymour, who is now in thy Alalav States, and on his death the whole estate was to become an endowment of Canterbury ( allege for the establishment of science scholarships. Alost of the income was from real estate, and the annual total is now £l-123. To-day the Chief Justice tSir Charles Skerrett) heard an application which Airs Preston brought under the Family Protection Act. Air ('. Al. Neilson. who appeared for her. stated that Airs Preston now lived with an invalid husband, a daughter and three grandchildren at Slmrebam-by-Sea. Essex. Hor income was £BO 1 per year from investments made by her husband and £SO per year which Afrs Seymour had allowed her from the estate. Air Neilson contended that Roper bad chosen New Zealand as his domicile, so that the Family Protection Act applied. The ethical side was strong. The plaintiff was in need. The beneficiaries were strangers and Roper’s wife had assisted him in the establishment of the business. The real estate was close on £IO,OOO and he submitted that the C ou t should at least make an allowance from this. He suggested £350 a year and that the allowance should bo made retrospective.

Air C. A. L. Treadwell, for Airs Seymour, submitted that there was insufficient evidence of Roper’s domicile. Roper had sent liis wife and children to England. Air H. F. O'Leary, representing the Governors of Canterbury College, adopted a neutral attitude, and stated that if the domicile of Roper at bis death was established as being in New Zealand it made no difference that the plaintiff did not pretend to be domiciled here. The Act provided for the dependants of a testator, and in the various statutes “dependants” had always been interpreted to mean such people anywhere in the world. He was satisfied that Roper had acquired A domicile of choice here, and that the request of counsel for plaintiff was a reasonable one. His Honour said that be had come to a conclusion, but as the parties were in England be thought it best that be should put bis conclusions in writing.