A WILL CASE

Wairarapa Age, 26 March 1920, Page 3

A WILL CASE

FALCONER v. FALCONER. In the Supreme Court, at Masterton, yesterday, before His Honour the Ch:ef Justice (Sir Robert Stout), a will case was heard in which Mrs W. L. Falconer sought to have her legacy under the will of her late husband increased under the Family Protection Act of 1908. Sir Pragnell appeared for Mrs Falconer, Mr Biss for the* Trustee, Mr M. Myers for James Albert Falconer (a beneficiary under the will), and Mr Burridge for William Clarence Falconer, a son of deceased, 18 years of ■uge.^ His Honour said that according to the papers before him the value of the estate was something like £15,000, and the amount left to the widow is to be £2 a week. He asked counsel if that was agreed upon. Mr.Myers said his clients fixed the net value of the estate at £7500, and the net income therefrom at £250 per annum. Mr Pragnell said he fixed the annual income at over £3OO. '^ Mr Pragnell, in opening his case, said that Mrs Falconer was married when she was under 20 years of age She was now about 50 years of age. At the time they were married, Mr Falconer owned two farms, approximating 550 acre's. Mr and Mrs Falconer were pioneers in,the clearing of those farms. A few years after her marriage Falconer acquired another farm. Mrs Falconer had taken part n improving the farms and had worked hard to bring up her family, and she was entitled to a more liberal allowance from the estate. Mr Myers said that his -client, James Albert Falconer, did not wish to be illiberal to his mother. Hiß client had already said' that he is prepared that his mother's allowance shall be doubled, viz., increased from £lO4 per annum to £2OB per annum. Replying to His Honour, Mr Pragnell said that at present Mrs Falconer obtained the whole of the income from che estate, but upon William Clarence ijjajconer attaining the age of 21, in three years' time, her income Would oe only £lO4 per annum. His Honour asked if counsel could not agree to adjourn the case till young Falconer came of age. It was problematical as to' what was .going to happen in land values between now and March 18th, 1923, when ydung Falconer came of age. Counsel intimated that this would !>o satisfactory. After further discussion, His Hon- | our said he would adjourn the case for three years. If he fixed an amount | upon present values, an injustice [ might be done to some members of I che family. ,