A COMPLICATED WILL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 184, 3 February 1914, Page 8

A COMPLICATED WILL.

THE CLAI.US Ul< TiJtil'K III'SJJAiNUS. W'JIU SHALL TAKE THE AIU.NIiVV

Jiy Telegraph—J'i'oss Association,

Auckland, Last Mgh.t A complicated set of circumstances was revealed in a will case brought bofiu'e Mr. Justice Cooper at Hie .Supreme Court this morning. An application was made for an order declaring Annie A. Henley intestate, and appointing Alexander Henley, her husband, administrator of the estate, it was shown in evidence'that deceased had been three times married, but no proof of the validity of the two latter of the ceremonies was -available. The lirst husbandl went to Australia, .there being no issue of the marriage, and alter continued absence, and under the belief that he had died, deceased went through a. form of marriage with anolhcr man. The parlies lived together for some years and four children were born of tin' union; then they were involved iu some domestic disputes at Wanganui, resulting in a separation) order, and laler, it was discovered the lirst hus■linnd was alive in Svdney. That was in 1003 or 190-1. Tlie'marriage hot ween plaintiff and deceased took place some seven years later, and one child was born, and the deceased. Annie Henley, died iu .Tillv of hist vear. The property in the estate is estimated at C 1,200. Deceased made a will iu 100S leaving the property to plaiuliU' and the children of the second marriage, but this document she revoked by a will in 11100, and then obtained possession of the later one from her solicitor, and apparently destroyed it. In 1912, she gave instructions for a new will to be prepared, hut this was never signed. A declaration of intestacy was, therefore, asked for. The four children of the third marriage were joined as defendants. His Honor pointed out that i.h" difficulty to be faced was the validity of tlio marriage between the plaintiff and deceased. If the lirst husband was dead at the time of the second marriage, the second husband, who was still alivej was the legal widower, but if Jie was alive then, and still surviving at the time of the thiid marriage, the plaintiff and his child were out of court. There was evidence to show lie was alive when the second marr'ugo was contracted, though there was the honest belief that he was dead. I!ut there was no evidence at all to show whether he was still living when the third, marriage took place. The evidence on that point was important, and he suggested that the case be adjourned for further inquiries to be made. Counsel adopted the suggestion. *