RELIEF UNDER FATHER’S WILL

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3646, 2 June 1927, Page 3

RELIEF UNDER FATHER’S WILL

SOUGHT BY DAUGHTER. PETITIONER SUCCEEDS. In the Supreme Court at Palmerston North yesterday, Minnie Fee, a daughter of the late George Coley, of Foxton, petitioned under the Family Protection Act for further consideration under the will of her father. Mr. M. B. Bergin appeared on her behalf while Mr. W. L. Fitzhcrbert defended the action on behalf of the widow, Catherine Coley, and three sons, •James, George and Percy Coley. Petitioner, in her pleadings stated that she had nine children, seven of whom were dependent upon her. Her husband was employed at present as a butcher and slaughterman at Foxton at a wage of £5 per week, but prior to March earned £4 10s per week at shearing and labouring. In January last her husband received £9O from the estate of his late father and mother, which sum had been expended in discharging debts'due by him and purchasing clothes for himself and family. His real estate and the total value of his assets including furniture did not exceed £125. Petitioner alleged that during recent years she and her husband had been able to clothe their children only scantily and had been unable, through poverty, to purchase footwear for them. From time to time the Medical Inspector of Schools had notified her to have the children’s teeth attended to hut she did not have'sufficient money io comply with the request. During the last 18 years the family had lived rent free in a five-roomed house.

For seven years preceding the death of her father plaintiff said she had done house cleaning and on many occasions washing for her mother for which she had not received any remuneration. In his will her father bequeathed to her and her sisters £25 each and after bequeathing the whole of his horses and farm implements to the three sons, 'James, George and Percy, the residue estate was given over to the widow and the same three sons. The value of the estate after paying debts and funeral expensed was £8362 8s 4d out of which death duties and expenses had to be met. The reality in the estate was valued at £2185. Petitioner added that she had no income whatever. Mr. Bergin stated that in April last each of the four defendants had received £467 14s Id which left a balance in the estate of £5138 lbs 6d to which was to be added £2OO in. trust. This meant that each of the defendants had yet to receive £I2BO less administration expenses. Mr. Fitzhcrbert: But the property is practicably unsaleable. Foxton properties are a drug on the market. Mr. Bergin said lie would not ask that the widow’s share be interfered with but lie thought that each of the sons might eontriute £250. His Honour: What about the other married sisters? Mr. Bergin: I don’t know anything about their positions. They don’t live in Foxton. Mr. Fitzerbert stated that when the family was at home none of them received wages for what work they did and it was practically on the efforts of two of tbi sons that the father had Imilt up the farm. Petitioner and her husband were receiving more in the way of income than any of the defendants. £250 from each was ridiculous. Two of Mrs. Fee’s children were working and she was getting a house rent free. It said very little for her husband if he could not keep it in order. His Honour: It seems that.something should be done not so much for Mrs. Fee as for her children. His Honour thought testator had not given consideration to everything he should have. Here was a daughter with nine children, in a poor position, and she must be having a hard struggle. As regards the widow, it was agreed that her portion should not be touched but he thought that the three sons should contribute something especially for the sake of the children and at least until they were able to earn their own living. He ordered that £lO9 be taken from the share the sons were to receive and placed in the hands of the Public Trustee who would have discretionary powers to expend same in the best interests of the plaintiff and her children.