WIDOW'S. CLAIM

—«. > LARGER ANNUITY DESIRED ESTATE OF MR GEORGE JAMESON Increased annuities under the will of the late George Jameson, of Christchurch, whose net estate was £53,065, were asked by his widow and by two <ons in a Supreme Court action heard by his Honour Mr Justice Northcroft yesterday. The plaintiffs were Vera Blanche Lowry Jameson (the widow o£ George Jameson), and Walter Ashley Jameson and John Owen Jameson An application was also lodged by Mrs Edith Gertrude Dunstervillc, but was not pressed. Mr K. M. Gresson appeared for Mis Jameson and W, A. Jameson, Mr W. R Lascelles for John Owen Jameson, Mr W. J. Sim for Reginald Leslie Jameson, who represented all the pec niary egatces, Mr C. S. Thomas for the Perpetual Trustees, Estate, and Agency Company, executor and trusfeo under the will, Mr R Twyneham for May C. Thomas and Lmda Ldeen Jameson, Mr A. T. Donnelly for the infant children of May C. Thomas and R L Jameson, and Mr M. •>■ Gresson for the infant children of Linda Eileen Jameson and Frederick Ja ße?o°re Mr K. M. Gresson opened his case Mi: Donnelly said that it was admitted by all the defendants that some additional allowance should be made to the widow. They agreed that the widow's income should be made up to £SOO a year from all sources, including her private income. If the court made an order in favour ot tne widow or any other person, the very difficult question of the incidence of the order would have to be considered as well. , . .... His Honour said that the jurisdiction of the court arose only if it was shown that the testator had failed in his duty. Disposition of Estate Mr K. M. Gresson said that a suspensory order only was asked for Walter Ashley Jameson, th: crippled son of the testator. Mrs Dunsterville's claim was formally withdrawn. The value of the estate was £ 53.060, hj" continued. The widow, who was 49 years of age, had been given furniture valued at £3OO and the income on £4OOO had been set aside for her use during her life. This made £l6O a year She had married the testator in 1925, nine years before his death. The estate included a farm property ("Oamarama," Hawke's Bay), free of encumbrances., valued for duty purposes at £22,800. There was a large town residence, "Ellerton," on four acres of land, and other assets. The widow wanted to keep on living in the house to provide a home for the crippled son. While the farm was officially valued at £22,800, it should have a clear value of £30,000, Mr Grcsson maintained. Under the wiL R. L. Jameson received a pecuniary legacy of £2OOO, and his wife Nella also £2000; F. D. Jameson, a son of the testator, had received nothing, but he made no claim. Other pecuniary legatees received £3IOO. Annuity funds set asideamounted to ;clsoo for W. A. Jameson, £2500 for J. O. Jameson, £IOOO for May C. Thomas, with reversion 1o her children, £3OOO to Biddy Jameson (wife of F. D. Jameson), with reversion to her children, and £ISOO to Edith uertrude Dunstervillc. Plaintiff's Finances The widow set out her assets at .: 174 a vear of her own, half of the capital producing it being derived from the estate of her mother, and Ihe other half being from a gift from her husband during hi--* lifetime. Her claims a\d those of testator's invalid son, it was maintained, should go together. Mrs Jameson received from the attorney of this son £ls a month as his contribution toward running the household. This son's estate was sworn at £2OO a year from his own moneys; and with the present provision of the will he would have about £5 a week. Mr Gresson referred to the affidavit of two accountants—C. C. Holland and S. W. Jameson—about the profits from the farm. He emphasised that no disparagement or reproach could be made against the widow, who had proved herself an extremely devoted .stepmother in undertaking the personal care of a crippled son of the testator. In an estate which was passed for duty at £53,000 she might well have looked to receive £IOOO a year. The Specific Claim For the plaintiff it was suggested that her annuity should be increased to £750, or, alternatively, that the annuity fund should be increased to £20,000, which was a little more than a third of the capital value of the estate. Not more than 4 per cent, interest could be expected. Mr Lascelles said that the claim on behalf of his client, J. O. Jameson, was being made because his properties were negligible, and were in fact liabilities. He was entirely without means. It was claimed that there had been a breach of moral duty on the part of the testator in relation to this son, who was the poorest of the sons. At the time of the making of the will, it was maintained, the testator had been unduly pessimistic about the value of the estate. It might be said that the breach of duty on the part of the testator sprang from this undue pessimism. The grandchildren appeared to have been indulged at the expense of the widow and the children of the testator, who had a greater claim on his bounty. What was asked for this claimant was an annuity of £IOO a year, representing £IOOO in all on the expectation of life. This sum could be considered small in an estate of £53,000. Under the will he received the interest on £2500, or £.IOO a year, which was inadequate. Values Under Present Conditions Mr Donnelly contended that the case of the widow and ths son should be considered separately. There was no reason why the wido\. or the invalid son should continue to live in the large house with its costly upkeep, although it. might not be possible to sell the property. He suggested that the capital value of the estate had to be looked at in the light of the known economic conditions of the day. Argument was o orought before his Honour by Yv Sim. Ke submitted that the offer made was adequate in the circumstances. Mr Twyneham said that on behalf of the parties he represented he was willing to endorse the suggestion, made by Mr Donnelly and Mr Sim, that the widow's income should be made up to £3OO in all. Mr Gresson said that the question was whether £335 a year, representing the interest on plaintiff's own money, and ti life interest on £4OOO, was adequate maintenance for the widow in such an estate. Mr Thomas explained some of the factors governing the income from the farm property. His Honour reserved his decision.