WIDOW’S CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23819, 12 December 1942, Page 6

WIDOW’S CLAIM FOR RELIEF

HUSBAND’S ESTATE

QUESTION OF ANOTHER CHILD Saying that he teas not disposed to consider the case further until an order was taken out for representation by counsel of another child. Mr Justice Northcroft, in the Supreme Court yesterday, adiourned an application under the Family Protection Act in the estate of the late Hubert Jack Stevens, formerly an Iron importer in Christchurch, but at the time of his death, at the age of 42 years, an hotelkeeper at Halswell. The plaintiff was Stevens's widow, Fanny Elizabeth Stevens, and the defendants were a child by Stevens's first marriage and two children of the second marriage, and the Public Trustee, as executor and trustee under the will. It was revealed in the widow's affidavit that her husband had had an illegitimate child, who. under the Statutes Amendment Act of lO.lfi. is entitled to make a claim. Because; that child was not represented, and it was stated that the child's mother would have no knowledge of the action now before the Court, his Honour adjourned proceedings to allow consideration of the question whether the Illegitimate child should be represented. Dr. A. L. Haslam represented Mrs Stevens, and the defendants were;— June Maxime Stevens (Mr A, C. Brassington). the child of the first marriage: Jeanette Kathleen Stevens and Hubert Betham Stevens (Mr G. G. Lockwood), the two children of the second marriage, and the Public Trustee (Mr R. A. Cuthbert).

Stevens, according to an affidavit and statements in Court, had been twice married and had died on August 10, 1941, leaving a will dated April, 1939. Since her husband's death, the plaintiff had ascertained that her husband was the father of an illegitimate child born in November, 1935 (before her marriage to him), and that the maintenance order amounted to 10s a week. The question of arrears under the order arose after her husband’s death. Under the will the daughter of the first marriage was the main beneficiary, and the plaintiff claimed that while she received a widow’s pension amounting to £ll7 a year, she had insufficient to live on and to rent a house. When Dr. Haslam was opening his case, Mr Bra'-sington raised the question whether the illegitimate child should not be represented. Dr. Haslam replied, that that matter was disclosed in the plaintiff's affidavit and no provision for the illegitimate child had been made in the will, and it was not a party to the proceedings as a beneficiary.