SON DROPPED FROM WILL

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 917, 10 March 1930, Page 10

SON DROPPED FROM WILL

CLAIM AGAINST FATHER S ESTATE BISHOP AS DEFENDANT The Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland, the Right Rev. Dr. Liston, was the principal defendant in an action under the Family Protection Act, heard by Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court today. TTENRV STEVENS, a seaman, 1 1 applied for provision under the will of his father, the late George Stevens, of Te Papapa, who did not allocate anything to his son, although several personal legacies were made to his family. The residue, amounting to £1,475. was bequeathed to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland for orphans. The estate was valued at £2,5411. A life interest was left to the widow, and upon her death a house and furniture in Grotto Street was to go to a daughter, Mrs. E. Lennan. Legacies of £IOO each were granted to two sons, William and Joseph Stevens, and £SO to Mrs. Bridget M. Frankton, a stranger. Supporting the claim of Henry Stevens. Mr. Sullivan said claimant asserted that during the 12 years, while he was working on steamers, he had handed his father £3 weekly, amounting to £432, on condition that provision equal to the total should be made in the father’s will. Claimant was married, with four young children. LARGER PROVISION Application for larger provision under the will was also made by Joseph Stevens, for whom Mr. Moody appeared. Mr. Taylor represented the executors, and Mr. McVeagh appeared for Bishop Liston. Mr. McVeagh said the Bishop did not desire to take up an attitude morally unfair to the relatives. The claim of the residuary legatees, however, was particularly meritorious, the money having been left for the benefit of orphans. Mr. Taylor said deceased had several times changed his wills because he had quarrelled with members of the family. The testator had had a distinct row with his sou, Harry, and left him out of the will on that account. “Here is an estate in which only £2OO has been left to four sons, the balance being bequeathed to a meritorious cause. I consider, however, the testator's children come before the orphans, no matter how meritorious their claim,” said the Judge. He considered that both applicants had a right to further provision, but deferred fixing the amount until two other sons put forward their claims.