WILL DISPUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 24 August 1932, Page 4

WILL DISPUTE

CASE IN COURT,

VALIDITY OF SECOND MARRIAG^

(Per Press Association-—Copyright.)

WELLINGTON, August 23.; -The validity of a second, marriqgeis in question, in a case before Mr .‘Justice Reed, in the Supreme Court. By the will cf Thomas Kempton. who died in 1910, the tfestator left the residual estate to the children of his twelve children, the lastrmentiongd- inr eluding his son, Henry William Kemp* ton. This son, Henry William Kemp* .. ton at Napiar, in 1883, married Margaret Ellen Heslop, and there were three children of the marriage. In the year 1892 Henry Win. Kempton went through the ceremony, of marriage with Esther Jane Swan, and there vera six chidren of this marriage. The plaintiff is John Thomas Kempton.' He seek's a declaration, that -he and his two brothers (ohildren of the first marriage). ar<i the only lawful children of Henry William Kempton) and contends that to the beet of hie. knowledge, his mother .was living at the time'of the second marriage. : . The Public Trustee- ascertained the number of grand-ehjjldr.en of the testator, entitled to share in. the residuary real estate was fiftymne but if the six dependents , (children -of the . second, marriage) are entitled to i ihans); tbe j number would ba -incmed to 57, Counsel for the defendants said tho plaintiff’s mother left her husband ift 1887, and went to,-Wellington,- The husband followed, a few days after* ward, and found that she had.sailed with another man for Sydney. He consulted a solicitor, and steps were tak- 4 ' en in the direction of instituting divorce, proceedings. In 1890,- Henry-' William Kempton had a letter from his wife’s father, saying that &he had died at Sydney, He then considered the way was clear, and he married again in 1892. ■ vi , •' Evidence on these lines was given by Henry Wiliam Kempton, who when questioned -in regard to the aforementioned letter from his father-in-law, said he had it in his possession ’ for some years, when. it disappeared from a box in which he kept it. Later, it was found to be' in po:se©sibn of the Public Trustee. He knew nothingof the letter' which; plaintiff claimed the first wife wrote in 1892't0 a constable stationed at Greytown, saying that she would expose her husband if' ‘ he married again. \ }u ‘ Evidence for the defence was completed to-day. f- ’■'‘v' T. Emily May Armstrong Hehry':' William Kempton’s sister, said she re membered hearing of an announcement in the Greytpwn ‘‘Standard”, of the death of the first Mrs Kempton. She had never heard her mother di«-. own ! the s children of her brother’s second marriage. The children used to ‘visit Mr and Mrs Kempton senr.,;frequently. As far as ' fih<j( knew, hep brother’s second marriage was not disputed,

The Court reserved its decision. .