WIDOW'S SHARE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 99, 29 April 1939, Page 16

WIDOW'S SHARE.

HUSBAND'S ESTATE. APPEAL COURT HEARING. DECISION IS RESERVED. i (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. The Court of Appeal to-day heard an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Xorthcroft delivered in August, 1938, in Palmerston North, in an action brought under the Family Protection Act by Amy Dillon of Pahiarua. widow, against Henry Dillon and Michael Francis Dillon, both of Pongaroa, farmers, Mrs. Mary Kathleen Stuart, of Pongaroa, Miss Eileen Dillon, of Pongaroa, and Miss Elsie Higgins, of Glenbrook, near Waiuku. The action was one In which Mrs. Dillon sought an order enlarging provision made for her by the will of her late husband, Henry Dillon, of Paliiatua, who died in January, 1937, leaving an estate valued at about £5600 Testator and Mrs. Dillon were married in August, 1935, testator being aged 81 and Mrs. Dillon 50. Testator was previously married and had five children. Agreement With Children. At the time of the marriage testator was a retired farmer and had previously carried on farming operations, in which some of his family had been associated with him. Disputes with his children had arisen, which had been litigated and compromised by an agreement dated February, 1933. Among the terms of the agreement was a provision that testator should forthwith by will devise his farm lands at Pongaroa to trustees upon trust for his son, Henry Dillon, jun., and his daughters, Mary Kathleen Stuart and Eileen Dillon, subject to an annuity of £50 in favour of the daughter Elsie Higgins. In March, 1936, testator made a will devising his lands in accordance with this arrangement and devising the balance of that estate, valued at approximately £1400, to his widow. He died on January 29, 1937. His Honor's Judgment. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Northoroft held that testator in entering into the agreement referred to and executing the subsequent will had endeavoured to contract himself out of the obligation imposed on him by the Family Protection Act, and that the Court was entitled to encroach upjtn the devise of lands to testator's children in order to make adequate provision for his widow. His Honor accordingly increased her benefits by raising her income to £150 a year and providing for redemption of mortgages on a house left her under the will. The appeal to-day was brought from that judgment. The Court reserved decision. This case marked the conclusion of the present session of the Court of Appeal.