LEFT NOTHING TO FAMILY

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1051, 15 August 1930, Page 1

LEFT NOTHING TO FAMILY

Will of a Master Mariner £14,000 TO BROTHER AND SISTER Court Awards Provision r£ widow and four children of a former master mariner, Frederick Joseph Gill, who left his family nothing under his will, having bequeathed the whole of his estate of £14,000 equally between his brother and sister, have been awarded further provision out of deceased’s estate. This is the decision of Mr. Justice Smith, in a reserved judgment delivered today, on an originating summons by the widow, Bessie Maud Gill, asking for further provision out of the estate of her late husband. The Guardian Trust and Executive Company of New Zealand, Ltd., was the defendant.

His Honour directed that the sum of £275 should be set aside, as from the death of the testator, out of deceased’s brother’s share of the estate, and that these amounts be paid to each child upon attaining 21 years of age. The income from these sums to be applied for the maintenance, education and benefit of the children until they obtain their majority. In event of any child not reaching 21, the sum of £275 shall fall back into the testator’s brother’s share of the estate. Reviewing the case, his Honour said that the testator, who had been a master mariner, made his will on September 26, 1928, and exactly a vear later to the day, he committed suicide. He left an estate of £14,000. the annual income of which was £703, to his brother, Thomas Gill, and bis sister Minnie, equally between them. Nothing was left by the testator to his widow and children, although he had lived with them until his death No executor was appointed, and the Guardian Trust was granted letters of his administration. The sister Minnie had died before the testator, and accordingly her share was available upon an intestacy, in the proportions of onethird to the widow, and two-thirds to the children equally, these sums being £2,342 and £4,685, respectively. MARRIED IN HONG-KONG Proceeding, his Honour stated that plaintiff and her husband were married in llong-Kong in 1911, residing in comfortable circumstances in a large house, and employing six servants, until 1924. The family took frequent holidays abroad, travelling at various times to Canada, Japan, South Africa, England and other countries, staying at good hotels. In 1920 the husband’s certificate of a master mariner was suspended for 12 months, and he lost his position. According to the w*ife, by buying a half share in and managing a boarding house, and by dealings in foreign exchanges, she accumulated not less than £B,OOO, which enabled the family to maintain its standard of living. The wife stated that on coming to New Zealand in 1921 with upward of £9,000, at her husband’s request, she invested it in his name. The husband joined the wife in New Zealand in 1925, and from then on allowed her £lO a week for housekeeping and domestic expenses, including the upkeep of a motor-car. As time went on, the husband appeared to have become very depressed, through his professional misfortune in 1920. He became cruel to his wife; on one occasion he endeavoured to strangle her, and more than once she was compelled to take refuge in the house of a neighbour. During 1929 he took aw’ay his wife’s best jewellery, and she had not seen it since He was cruel also to his children, and he threatened to leave his wife and children destitute. In September, 1928, he reduced, his wife's allowance to £5 a week, but as this was insufficient the husband had to meet the domestic expenses. FRAIL CHILDREN In her affidavit, His Honour continued, the widow’ stated that she was in poor health, and that only one of the children was earning and contributing to the upkeep of the home. The two youngest children were frail

in health and required constant medical attention. The total expectant annual income of the widow and children at the present was £442, and she estimated that the amount required to keep the family in reasonable comfort was £ 600. His Honour said that the legatee of one half of the estate, Thomas Gill, a master mariner, living in England, was, according to affidavits, in poor health and had no other assets beyond his earnings of £350 a year. He had a daughter and a son, aged 13 and 10 respectively, and his wife was in delicate health. This beneficiary left the question entirely to the Court to settle, his counsel having admitted there had been a breach of moral duty by the testator toward the widow. His Honour commented that it was the testator's duty to see that adequaie maintenance was secured to her until her death or remarriage, consistent with the standard of living maintained by the testator and the amount of his estate. He also considered that it was the father’s duty to make some provision for his children, all of whom had shown constitutional weakness. The judge considered that as the widow was now receiving an income of £ll7 a year, if a further income of £241 was provided, it should be no more than adequate maintenance for her until her death or remarriage. It was left to counsel to formulate a scheme in respect of the widow s extra provision. At the hearing Mr. Elliot appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Watson for the defendant company, and Mr. Goulding for Captain Thomas Gill.