FURTHER AID SOUGHT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 656, 7 May 1929, Page 16

FURTHER AID SOUGHT

CLAIM AGAINST FATHER’S ESTATE MARRIED AGAIN AT 72 False ideas held concerning the principles under which applications may he made for relief in terms of the Family Protection Act were referred to by Mr. Justice Kennedy in delivering reserved judgment in a will case in the Supreme Court yesterday. Edward John Sinel, clerk. Mrs. Marguerite Beata Ellis, Wilfred Courtney Sinel, wharfinger, Philip Mathieson Sinel, electrician, and Kenneth Sinel, salesman, all of Auckland, sought an order making further provision for them under the will of their father, Thomas Edwin Sinel, who died in February, 1920, at the age of 72, seven months after his second marriage. His Honour said that deceased’s widow, who was 47 years of age, was left his furniture and a house property valued at £1,275, as well as the income from the residue of the estate, now estimated to be worth between £B,OOO and £9,000. Her income was the equivalent of about £4OO a year. The shares of the children varied, some getting one-twentieth and some one-tenth share of the residue. Counsel for plaintiff claimed that an annuity should be ordered for the benefit of certain of the plaintiffs, and that in addition each should have transferred to him or her one building allotment contained in the estate. “If children are sufficiently provided for without aid from the testator, they cannot claim that further provision should be made for them under the Family Protection Act, 1908,” said his Honour. “In particular, adult children cannot claim, as the affidavits filed seem to suggest they may claim, merely because the adult children of the testator are of practically the same age as the widow and may consequently have little chance of personally enjoying a share in the testator’s estate. Nor do the war services of the sons who are applying (and their records of military service have been-uniformly distinguished) enable the court to order additional provision to be made for them except in so far as those services disabled them from earning a living, and thereby created a moral obligation that provision should be made for their maintenance and support.” However, in the present case it did seem that a wise and just father would have made provision for this family, and £3OO was ordered to be paid to Mrs. Ellis immediately, the sum to be chargeable against any future benefit she might receive from the estate. A similar order was made in favour of Philip Mathieson Sinel, costs £l2 12s being allowed in each instance. No orders were made on behalf of other applicants.