WILL QUESTIONED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21970, 19 December 1936, Page 10

WILL QUESTIONED

PROVISION MADE FOR CHILDREN AN ASHBURTON ESTATE The will of William Rudolph Tucker, of Ashburton. was in question in an action taken under the Families Protection Act on behalf of his children, before his Honour Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr Alan Brown appeared for the children, aged 14 and 11 years, Mr E. W. White for the trustees, and Mr G. C. Nicoll for the nieces and nephews who were also beneficiaries under the will. The parti-7 had agreed that the two children should receive the whole income of the estate until the younger of them reached the age of 21. and that thereafter they should receive four-fifths of the capital, and the real purpose of the case was to have this arrangement carried out with the authority of ihe court. Mr Brown said that Tucker had made a will-in July, 1926, and died in July, 1935, without altering it. He and his wife separated in 1930, and a divorce was obtained in 1933. Thereafter until his death his wife received £3 5s a week maintenance for herself and the children, who were in her custody. Miss Tucker now made no claim, although her total earnings since her husband's death had been only £3 a week. Nature of Estate and Will The estate comprised, first of all, 2500 £1 shares in a timber business. These could be sold to other members of the family at par. The second part of the estate included a few sections of a total value between £350 and £370. As an offset there were debts amounting to £370, so that the real value of the estate was represented by the shares. The will was hard to understand. It provided that the income on all but the shares was to go to Tucker's wife and two children until the age of 21 was reached, and that they were then to receive the capital. This meant that all they would get was a few pounds, for the income from this part of the estate was non-existent. The income on the shares was to be distributed by the trustees among his 10 nephews and nieces. It was indefinite whether they were to receive the capital or not. It was submitted that the interests of Tucker's two children, as there was no widow's claim, were paramount. The estate was so small that the provision for the children could not be large, and the £2500 invested would produce only about £2 a week. The suggestion put forward, after a conference of counsel, was that the income on the whole estate, after the debts had been paid, should be paid to Mrs Tucker for the children until the youngest reached the age of 21. and that if this income fell below £1 15s a week recourse should be had to the capital. When the younger child reached the age of 21 the capital should be divided in the proportion of four-fifths to the two children and one-fifth to the other beneficiaries. His Honour said that in the circumstances he would be prepared to make an order in the terms of the suggestion made by counsel.