WILL CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 139, 15 June 1938, Page 8

WILL CASE.

HUSBAND'S CLAIM.

DIVISION OF ASSETS.

DISPUTE WITH TRUSTEE.

The fmit by William John Crichton (Mr. Fitriierbert) before Mr. Justice R«ed in. which he made claim on the Public Trustee (Mr. Leary) to assets totalling £843 and costs in the estate of his late wife, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. : The admitted facts were that the late MM. Crichton, by her will, left plaintiff 4 Mf# interest in a house and property, their home, which was in her name, *dlh a proviso that after the expiry of j hw life interest the. assets in the estate should be distributed equally between J lier two sons by a former ■) marriage, i Plaintiff, alleged that under mutual wills agreed to and made out by himself and hia late wife they bad agreed that the survivor was to have a life interest in the home, and that the assets were subsequently to be equally distributed among his son by a former marriage and his wife's two sons, also 'bv a former marriage. On account of his wife's change in her will from this agreement he claimed for money he had put into the home and furniture from his own earnings.

Plaintiff "rave evidence on these lines, and brought further evidence as *o the making of the mutual wills, and that the property was valued at £1000 or £1100. Submissions For Defendant. Mr. Leery said the defence was that the Public Trustee's valuer valued the property at £850, and the Government valuation was between £800 and £700. Further, the furniture was insured in Mrs. Crichton's name. All of this indi- ! cated that something was wrong with plaintiff's claim. Counsel added that j nothing had been said by plaintiff to the i Public Trustee at a late date tbout the mutual wills. On the legal aspect Mr. Leary cited authority to support his view that there wa« no evidence of an independent contract at the time of making the mutual wills, and that such wills were revocable. He argued, further, that if there were a contract implied by the work done by the husband, coupled with the will he produced, it was statute-bound to six years, which affected the major portion of plaintiff's claim. In so far as Mrs. Crichton might have received moneys from plaintiff to make good occasional shortages in her outgoings, the legal presumption. said counsel, was that they were a gift.

Evidence would be led to indicate the probability that payment for the improvements and the mortgage came almost completely out of Mr*. Crichton's money. Before proceeding farther with the case both counsel reached an agreement respecting the claim on the furniture. Evidence was given by a sister of testatrix as to a loan made to the latter of £100 and a present of £25, in addition to the legacy of £310 from her mother's estate. _ Thomas C. Brookes gave evidence indicating that mention of the two wills was not mad« to the public trustee byplaintiff in the first stages of settling the estate. ° (Proceeding.)