A WILL CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 November 1921, Page 10

A WILL CASE.

UNUSUAL FEATURES. Wellington, Nov. 7. “The testator has been guilty of such a breach of his moral duty as will warrant the Court’s action,” said Mr. Justice Recd in giving judgment in a will caSe. The facts were of an extraordinary nature. When over seventy .years of age the testator married a woman of forty-six. He died within seven months of the marriage, leaving his estate with exception of two small legacies totalling £l’oo to her. The balance of the estate, principally mortgages, was sworn at £4920. The widow had. no dependents and had a private estate valued at £Sd‘l. By the deceased’s first marriage there were eleven children, one of whom had obtained an order from the Supreme Court for 30s per week maintenance. The present application was on behalf of five of the children for a share of the estate. One had six children, and her husband earned £4 a week as a carpenter and contributed to ; the support of his mother. The second had three children and said he had to live in a tent with his family, making a living by cutting fire'Wood. The third had six children, ranging from fourteen to twenty-seven years. Her husband was a road laborer earping £4 4s a week. She stated that when any of the children were but of work or wanted a holiday the expense fell on her and her husband. The fourth was the wife of a carpenter who was a widower with three children when she married him. Her husband earned £4 12s a weqk, from which his children had to be supported. The fifth was a domestic servant in Melbourne, aged 40, who earned £1 a week. She has saved nothing. The widow’s defence to the application was that during the last eighteen months she had suffered continuously from bad health and in December 1919 had a serious operation. For the last six months she was under the care of two doctors and had to undergo a further operation. Her statements were confirmed by medical men, one of whom stated she would be unable to earn her living in the future.

His Honor quoted the opinion of Mr. Justice -Edwards that it was the duty of the Court to place itself in. the position of the testator and to consider whether he had been guilty of a manifest breach of that moral duty which a just, but not moral husband or father owed towards his wife or his children. Remembering that the Court could only imperfectly appreciate the testator’s motives, he added that the widow’s income should not be materially trenched upon owing to her state of health; but some provision should be made for the children to share in the ultimate distribution of the body of the estate. His Honor directed that the sum of £9o*o should be paid to the Public Trustee to be held by him in trust to pay income arising from it to the widow during her lifetime, and at her death to be divided by the gift of £3OO to one of the children and £2OO each to two of them, £lOO each to the remaining two.