Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MARIE LOME’S DIVORCE

JUDGE SETTLES PRINSEP ESTATE CASE OVER MOTHER’S MONEY (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) Reed. 9 a.m. LONDON, Monday. In his judgment in the case in which the actress, Miss Marie Lohr, formerly Mrs. Anthony Val Prinsep, asked the Divorce Court to vary the marriage settlements made by her divorced husband’s mother, Mr. Justice Hill decided that £23,000 should be paid to Mr. Val Rinsep, who will pay all the costs. The rest of his mother’s money, amounting to £40,000, would be re-settled in his benefit.

Mr. Anthony Val Prinsep was in New Zealand a few months ago with his wife, Miss Margaret Bannerman. Miss Lohr, who divorced him early last year, asked the court in February to vary the marriage settlements, amounting to £20,000 and £86,000, made by Mr. Val Prinsep’s mother. It was proposed to settle on Miss Lohr and the daughter of the marriage, a girl of 15, property producing £2,000 a year.

The registrar had approved this scheme, which meant that £45,000 would be set aside in trust for Mr. Val Prinsep’s first wife and child, and the rest to be left for the husband free of any trust. The trustees of the settlement opposed the scheme, as it wa si a post-nuptial settlement, although the parties had agreed to it. Counsel for Miss Lohr submitted that the proposed income of £2,000 a year was not excessive, as it left £6,000 a year for the husband. Counsel for the trustees said the proposed arrangement would hand over a capital sum of £50,000 to Mr. Val Prinsep for good and all, thus defeating his mother’s primary object under the original settlement of protecting Mr. Val Prinsep against himself. In March, Mr. Justice Hill confirmed the report of the registrar as far as Miss Lohr and her daughter are concerned.

As the trustees took the view that the settlement was made to protect Mr. Val Prinsep from his own extravagance, the judge considered that the proper course was to release only part of the balance to Mr. Val Prinsep, and to resettle the rest in such a way as the trustees approved.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19290702.2.89

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 704, 2 July 1929, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
356

MARIE LOME’S DIVORCE Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 704, 2 July 1929, Page 9

MARIE LOME’S DIVORCE Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 704, 2 July 1929, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert