Truth THE TESTATOR'S FAMILY MAINTENANCE ACT.

NZ Truth, Issue 67, 29 September 1906, Page 4

Truth

THE TESTATOR'S FAMILY MAINTENANCE ACT.

PUBLISHED EVERY SATUBDAY MORNING AT LUKE'S LANE (OFF Mannersstreet), Wellington, N.Z.. SUBSCRIPTION (IN ADVANCE), 13S. PER ANNUM. ' • • ■ SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1906.

The Chief Justice of the colony of New Zealand is far from content with administering the law as it stands m the statute books, and not infrequently takes upon himself the ulterior office of Lord High Adviser to the Government, . irf which capacity he makes use of the Bench as a ros-. trum from which to fling h-is free unfettered opinions of things as they should be— in the Lord High Adviser's opinion. " This is particularly apropos m regard, to a certain mild statement made m, a recent case, brought under the Testators' Family Maintenance Act, when the daughters of a dead woman (who had lived a. gay life) applied for additional support other than the few shillings per week that had been left them under the provisions of the will. His Honor remarked that lie was unable to do anything for the girls, owing -ibo his powers being restricted as they , had .. been m the Plimmer case. 'Now, this is utterly preposterous of Sir Robert, -for lie could have done something for the girls without making any reference to the Plimmer case (of which hereafter). In the gay woman's will a bequest of £100 was made, to the Wellington [hospital for Incurables (rather a quaintly appropriate bequest to have been made by a lady of her class), and with the greatest ease m the world Sir Robert could have diverted that £100 to the girls, indeed counsel for the Hospital trustees would not have opposed such a course, and that" money could have been added to their allowance, to be spun out over as lonff a term as the money would last. But the Lord High* Adviser did not consider that at all. He contented his inflamed spirit by making remarks about the Plimmer case, that were m no wise pertinent ;, even go-, in~ so far as to say that fresh legislation was necessary m re the Testa- ' tors' Family Maintenance Act, wfeich. legislation should act ' retrospectively ' —meaning, of course, the rankling Plimmer case. Of course Parliament would not go so far on the road to insulting Judges Cooper, Chapman, Edwards and Denniston \(who happened to disagree with the Chief m the case noted) as to entertain such an outrageous proposal, particularly if the facts of the case wer,e known. The Plimmer case was an action brought by the widow of the late John Plimmer against the executors for more money under the Testators' Family Maintenance Act. She had been left. £3 a week, but considered she should have got more, though there was a legal agreement, V7hen they parted thirty years before, that that sum should content her. The application was heard before the Chief Justice and he graciously awarded her £1000 cash, m addition to the standing £3 per week. The executors appealed against this decision. Their counsel argued that the amount was excessive, and that the giving of a lump sum did not 'dovetail with the legal meaning of

the ''maintenance," as she could ''do it m" m a, lump the next day and be without maintenance, or she may die right away and leave money to a person m no way concerned- with the family, ' so robbing . the residuary legatees, who had to find the $1000. The appeal was * upheld, and m k-s place the executors were ordered to pay the old lady £2 a week, m addition to the £3 under the agreement—really .the interest at 5 per. cent, on £2000- k -a much more reasonable proportion than the unreasonable one proposed by the Chief Justice. . Now what that case has to do with the squabble over tho dead gay lady's profits m life, the whole Bar and many of the public would like to know.