A DISPUTED WILL CASE. The Old Story. RELATIONS QUARREL AND LAWYERS DIVIDE THE SPOILS.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 201, 30 April 1887, Page 12

A DISPUTED WILL CASE. The Old Story. RELATIONS QUARREL AND LAWYERS DIVIDE THE SPOILS.

The Wiingaeuri' Supreme Court has- been engaged wi&lv u disputed will case •of some fanner in 1882 John Mc- ■ Gregor, an old resident, died, having., by 1 deed of gift handed over the realty of- hi B estate to Miss* Boyd, his housekeeper, and shortly after, a <half -brother of deceased, Daniel McCiregtwv of Normanby, took out letters of administration and conjointly with others -sued Miss Boyd in the Supreme Court. Tht) ctvse, howover, was never I tiiushcd, the* pai-ties coming to an agreement by which the ebtate was divided among those whoweve contesting. There w«i»e> however, s&verivl relations loft out who' considered they had a right to a slia^e of tli© spoils >, and Daniel McGregor has alnaidy run the gauntlet of several lawsuits,, and had. disgorged £600 to. 'a hali nephew of deceased. The .widow of deceased on this occasion ; ih the person before Court. She denied that she ft&d been a party toiJie agj*o&u\e&\t by whicli» she was only to liave a £30 armuiti/ out. of an estate reckoned ,to> be worth £20,000, and claimed to sore* in withi the rest. It should |bo explained that isi> was an addition to an. 'annuity of E] 00 settled on her by hei husband, who hi id been serrated from ho* foirSonus 12 year s prior to his death. Mi* Jjelliooe (Wellin/ctoii)i(i{?pcared for the Avidow., and Mr Fit^hcrbevt (Wangantii) for defcntlent. Hin llon<w: ruled that tlio evldeiice given did nofc disclose thah, the : H'idaw had assented to withdraw all ; rights for £50 j, yeiu*v. and ordered^, an aG.oowait to be givea by the urbninisttatou. There i;t tkua- a fine oponing, for 1 fai'thcr legalities,, ari.l tlioao will dQuofciiSh «Euiiie in trou couraso of the cage.. j\Lr ; «tellicoe caused, *om£ amusement by, qjacfefaioning witn a^ to Avhat be hix f \. gpt out ot the estate, and t\ve,, rcsiats showed tlmv pt^>ortionatoly; the lawyer liad tiio best of ths; buttle so ! far. One moisi who got £600 had [to pay 113'iO' outi of it foi % Isiw,. expsoses* \Qi\Qvrhog-& £40) had to p*y £100, ' to. the 1 lawyers, a.n*J,aM.<&ther who rcseived piwpcrty valued a r j} £3»iM) had po^d , £lzs}i cash to the adiujnistrator, who claimed biggest silare as next of 1 iv, and in. addition, to pay hies law costs, the, sum of which ,vas not menti;>a)ed. The admin istr^toi" had to pan about £300 for the first, case, then ib'Odiijs, owjt wsis on the laefc action, andyd v reckons that in addition, to this he has spent another 1 30(). Forti^iately, ho is o\f. of the wealthiest men <\n this coa.st. Qtheiwise this contin u<?d. litigation mig^t prove disastrous.