WIDOW’S CLAIM

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 910, 1 March 1930, Page 6

WIDOW’S CLAIM

INCREASED ALLOWANCE SOUGHT COURT WILL MAKE GRANT From Our Own Correspondent HAMILTON, Friday. A claim for an increased allowance against her deceased husband’s estate was made by Annie Elizabeth Stade (Mr. Holmden), widow of Frederick Andrew Stade, in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Smith, today. Mr. J. F. Strang opposed the application on behalf of three of the children, Mrs. Lily Preece, Miss Lavinia Stade and Lionel Stade. Mr. F. A. De La Mare represented the Public Trustee. After hearing the evidence the judge held there had not been desertion, and said he would grant increased maintenance. He said he would fix the amount when he ascertained the net income of the estate.

Mr. Holmden said that plaintiff, who was 64 years of age, and her husband were married at Eltham in 188 7. There were six children of the marriage. Plaintiff would say that for many years her husband had made her life unbearable, and she was forced to leave him 12 years ago. Mr. Holmden said that in August, 1928, plaintiff secured maintenance from her husband at the rate of 25s a week. Her husband died at Cambridge last September. By his will, made in 1925, deceased had provided an annuity of £52 for her, and this, with the £2 she was now earning, comprised her income. Mr. Holmden submitted that plaintiff had not deserted her husband in 1918, in that deceased had acquiesced in her leaving him. In fact, he had requested her to leave him. Counsel said tho estate consisted of liquid assets valued at £6,724. Deceased left onetenth to one daughter, one-tenth to a son, and two-tenths to each of the other children. The fact that deceased had provided his widow with an annuity in his will in 1925 showed that he acknowledged her claim to maintenance from him. Mr. Strang said his clients’ attitude was merely prompted by a sense of loyalty to their lather and deep respect for his memory. They wanted to repudiate the suggestion that their laLlier was unjust or had been guilty of any moral wrong. They regarded their father as the innocent party in the disagreement between husband and wife. Mr. De La Mare—said the Public Trustee opposed the application on the grounds that Mrs. Stacie had deserted her husband, and that the Public Trustee had his duty to perform to the absent beneficiary in the estate, Frederick Stade. Evidence on the lines indicated by counsel was given by affidavit His Honour held that plaintiff had not deserted her husband. It was a case of separation. The parties had lived a separated life for 19 years, and this had had ill-effects on plaintiff’s mental make-up, and had worked on her nerves. It was an astonishing thing that they had lived in this way for so long. Plaintiff had had the responsibility largely of bringing up the family. Both parties then came to the conclusion that they could do without each other. The whole separation arose out of the life they had lived.