SON'S SHARE UNDER WILL.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 259, 1 November 1928, Page 8

SON'S SHARE UNDER WILL.

MAY BE PROTECTED.

IMMUNE FROM SEIZURE. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT BY MR. JUSTICE BLAIR. A far-reaching judgment affecting property left to a son under a father's will was given this morning at the Supreme Court by his Honor Mr. Justice Blair, in the case of C. A. Palmer v. A. \V. Wright, both of Manurewa. In 1925 a fire that started on defendant's property was alleged to have been the cause of the burning of a shed and motor truck belonging to plaintiff, who obtained judgment for the sum of £565. A charging order nisi was made charging the defendant's interest under the will of his father. Mr. Cocker, for the plaintiff, the other day moved to have the charging order made absolute. The defendant was represented by Mr. Uren.

Defendant, under the will of his father, was entitled during his life to a sixth share of the income of the deceased's residuary estate. The will provided that the income should be paid "to all my said six children in equal shares for and during their respective lives, and so that they shall not nor shall any of them have power to anticipate the same."

Section 24 of the Property Law Act reads: "It shall be lawful by will . . .

to provide that any estate or interest in any property comprised in the will

. . . given to any beneficiary, whether male or female, shall not during the life of such beneficiary be alienated or pass by bankruptcy or be liable to be seized, sold or attached, or taken by process of law."

In a long and able judgment Mr. Justice Blair discussed the position, and concluded by saying: "It appears to me that section 24 authorises a father or grandfather to do for a son or grandson that which formerly could be validly done for the benefit only of a married woman. If the restriction imposed protected a married woman's share, then since the passing of the section 24 a like restraint will protect a I son's share."

His Honor set aside the charging order and allowed defendant costs, £7 7/, and disbursements.

Discussion between counsel indicated that the judgment would possibly be the subject of an appeal.