CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22194, 10 September 1937, Page 9

CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE

♦ WORK DONE BEFORE DEATH PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED (WIESS association telegram.) AUCKLAND, September 9. •‘I personally think the law is inequitable. and in this case I think it will work an injustice,” said Mr Justice Ostler, in the Supreme Court, in non-suiting a married woman. who brought a claim against the executors of an estate. Plaintiff was Mrs Sarah Lizzie Sutherland, who from R. P. Towle and A. N. Cooper, solicitors, as executors and trustees of the estate of Alexander Hastings, u retired baker. Plaintiff alleged that from 1930 to July. 1935. she did domestic and nursing services for Hastings and his wife, and purchased articles and paid train and tram fares on their account. She claimed that her services were given at the request of Hastings or his wife on the express understanding that payment should be made by a provision in Hastings’s will. He died in March, 1936, leaving estate valued at £2911. Plaintiff said there was no provision for her in the will. “I think there was a contract but it is not enforceable,” said his Honour. The law stated clearly that a person who did work for a testator on the understanding that he would be paid by a legacy under a will, had no claim against the executors if the testator failed to make provision in the will. He regretted he had no option but to grant the non-suit moved for because the law on the point was very clear. “A Judge is sworn to do justice according to the Jaw, and not in accordance with his own personal idea of justice,” his Honour added.