A COMPLICATED WILL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 28, 3 February 1914, Page 7

A COMPLICATED WILL.

CLAIMS OF THREE HUSBANDS..

Auckland, February 2

A complicated set of circumstances vas revealed in a will case brought beore Mr Justice Cooper at the, Supreme Jourt this morning. An application .vas made for an order declaring Annie 1. Henley intestate, and appointing Alexander Henley, her husband, adninistrator of the estate. It was shown 11 evidence that deceased had been .hree times married, but no proof of the ceremonies was available. The irst husband went to Australia, there >eing no issue of the marriage, and il'ter continued absence, and under ..he belief that he had died, deceased .vent through a form of marriage with .mother man. The parties lived together for some years and four children a ere born of the union; then they were involved in some domestic disputes at vVanganui, resulting in a separation uder, and later, it was discovered the first husband was alive in Sydney, that was in 1903 or 1904. The marriage between plaintiff and deceased took place some seven years later, and one child was born, and the deceased, Annie Henley, died in July of last year. The property in the estate is estimated at £I2OO. Deceased made x will in 1908 leaving the property to plaintiff and the children of the second marriage, but this document she revoked by a will in 1909, and then obtained possession of the later one from her solicitor, and apparently destroyed it. In 1912, she gave instructions for a new will to be prepared, but this was never signed. A declaration of intestacy was, therefore, asked for. The four children of the third marriage were joined as defendants. His Honor pointed out that the difficulty to be faced was the validity of the marriage between the plaintiff and deceased. If the first husband was dead at the time of the second marriage, the second husband, who was still alive, was the legal widower, but if he was alive then, and still surviving at the time of the third .marriage,' the plaintiff and his child were out of court. There was evidence to show he was alive when the second marriage ■was contracted, though there was the honest belief that he was dead. But there was no evidence at all to show whether ho was still living when the third marriage took place. The evidence on that point was important, and he suggested that the case be adjourned for further inquiries to be (made. Counsel adopted tho suggestion.