VARIATION OF WILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume L, Issue 3960, 25 June 1929, Page 3

VARIATION OF WILL.

SON’S ANNUITY INCREASED. Auckland, June 24. In a reserved judgment in the Suprehue Court on 'Saturday, Mr. Justice Blair increased the annuity of William Bell, farmer, of Auckland, from £lO4 to £SOO, payable from the estate of his father, the late Alexander (Bell, also a farmer of Auckland, whose estate was valued at £340,000. William Bell was plaintiff in an application under the Family Protection Act. The Judge said it was estimated that after legacies and annuities iwere provided far, the residue of the estate, when it was divided up after ten years, would amount to £105,000 and each grandchild would receive approximately £20,000. The widow of testator had an annuity of £IOOO and he understood she was applying for further provision. Two married daughters received £SOO each and two other daughters (received £lO,000 and £20,000 respectively. In the original -will, plaintiff was granted an annuity of £2OO and his wife one of £IOOO but under a coped, the sum granted plaintiff was reduced to £lO4 per annum, while the wife’s annuity was revoked. In a further codicil, testator bequeathed £SOO to each of his grandchildren but made an exception in the case /if the sons of plaintiff. Plaintiff became ill and had received medical attention and one could have imagined, his Honour said, that in those circumstances the wealthy father could have done more than leave him in public hospitals, which were not intended to be filled by persons who could easily affoi'd private nursing and attention.

“I mention this fact,” said the Judge, “as sonve further indication of the (mentality of testator and his ideas -of his duty towards his family and the State.” It was admitted his Honour said, that plaintiff had been addicted to drinking but it was to be remembered th'at as a young man, he had more or less slaved for his father and saved all the money he could. “There might he some excuse for indulgence,” said his Honour, “in what to some persons is foolishly looked upon as help to forget their troubles.” Colour was lent to the suggestion that the cause of the father’s differential treatment of his son was based on the religion of his wife. In giving judgment, his Honour madfe a provision that if the money granted by the annuity v r as misspent on excessive drinking, the grant could be paid to trustees for the maintenance of plaintiff.