SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 February 1920, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

.YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

LOAN & MERCANTILE CO. v. ROBERT WILLIS.

The hearing of the action of the N.Z. Loan and Mercantile Agency Co., Ltd. (Mr. A H. Johnstone, with him Mr. L. M. Moss, Stratford) v. Robert Willis (Mr. T. Neave, Wellington), for £432 under a guarantee, was continued yesterday. The defence set out that while the guarantee was for £4OO there was a distinct understanding that the money to be advanced was for stocking a farm leased by George Willis from a Mr. Perry ; also that the endorsement allowed the account to fluctuate up to £IOOO, but that the Company had allowed it to go a good deal beyond that; and also that the advances made had been for purposes other than those intended when the guarantee agreement was signed. It was, therefore, submitted that by changing the business for which the advances were originally intended, tlie guarantee in connection with the account was therefore nullified. Evidence was given by Robert Willis, farmer, Rowan. After hearing legal, argument, the Court reserved its decision. TERMS OP A WILL. Under an originating summons, Edward Travers and others (Mr. P. O'Dea, Hawera) v. Patrick Travers and another (Mr. C. Hutton, Wanganui), sought an order of the Court, under the provisions of the Families Protection Act, making such provision for the plaintiffs as the Court should think fit. The question was as to the provision made for his widow and family under the, will of the late Michael Travers, farmer, of Kakaramea. The plaintiffs were Edward Travers, the eldest son of the testator, the widow (Agnes Travers), Mary Ann Dwyer, and Margaret Handley, of the testator, and the defendants were Patrick Travers, the younger son of the and William Large, executor and trustee under the will.

It was pointed out tnai the estate was worth about. £12,000. The widow, who was totally blind, and needed constant attendance, had been left an annuity of £2OO and the use of fifteen acres of land. At her death the interest in the land was to pass to Mary Ann Dwyer, and at her death it was to pass to the use of a grandson, Michael Jordan Travers. The sum of £07;". Was left as follows: Mrs. Ilandlev £SOO, Edward Travers £2O, Sarah Travers (grand-daughter) £IOO, Lilly Travprs (grand-daughter) £SO. Hie residue of the estate was left to Patrick Travers.

It was submitted that the position in which the widow and the plaintiff children were left was one of peculiar hardship, especially as the value of the testators estate.-had been greatly enhanced by the labors of his three elder children, wiio claimed that their father had repeatedly said that the land would be equally divided between them all. The actual position of the plaintiff children was placed before the Court, and authorities were cited in support of the application for the order. Fur tiie defendants 'it was submitted that tiie property in which the widow had a lit",, interest was capable of yielding a further sum of nearly £IOO, and wiih that it. could hardly be said that the- iv.uoiy was in a position of hardship, hdward 1 ravers hal received £4OO some time after his marriage, and £35 at his wedding day. Neither were the daughters, who were both married, suffering hardship. The further hearing of the application was adjourned to the, Wanganui sessions of the Court.