FARMER’S WILL

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26211, 7 September 1950, Page 3

FARMER’S WILL

APPLICATION BY DAUGHTER NO ORDER MADE The testator had lived a frugal and not very affluent life and had made provision for his widow which was reasonable and proper. He had also made provision for the daughter, who had a family from whom she might expect support. In all the circumstances a perfectly proper and reasonable arrangement had been made, said Mr Justice Northcroft, in the Supreme Court yesterday, after hearing an application on behalf of Mabel Bell, a widow, for further provision from the estate of Thomas Gillis, a farmer, of Domett. No order would be made, said his Honour. Mr A. W. Brown, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that this was an old. matter which had been standing adjourned since 1931. The testator made a will on June 13, 1924, and died on December 6. 1930. At the time of his death the testator was a farmer at Domett, his widow being then aged 67. His adopted daughter, the plaintiff, had at that time six children and she and her husband were living on the testator’s farm. She had now nine children, five of them grown up. Her husband had since died, and she and her family were still living in a house on the farm. The net balance of the estate was £5443. of which about half was in cash.

By his will, the testator left £5O to the trustees for masses, £5O for a tombstone, and £lOOO in cash to the widow. The residue was to be held by the trustees, the income to go to the testator’s widow for life. At her death the residue was to be divided into two equal portions. Mrs Bell was to receive the income for life from one half and at her death that half whs to be divided between her children. The other half of the estate was to be divided among nephews and nieces in Ireland who were not in good circumstances. These relatives had never been in New Zealand. The testator had lived in New Zealand for 50 years or so and had not seen his relatives for that time, though he had apparently kept in touch with one of them. The testator’s widow died only last year at the age of 85. The plaintiff received no immediate benefit under the will and only now was she entitled to the income from half the estate, which would amount to about £6O a year Death of Widow Proceedings were begun in 1931, continued counsel, but the case was adjourned by the late Mr Justice Adams until the death of the testator’s widow. A legacy of £lOOO went to the widow, who died on December 10, 1948, and she used it for her upkeep during her lifetime. The plaintiff’s husband had worked on the testator’s farm for 25s a week, though the family was found. The plaintiff now received a widow’s pension of £136 10s a year, a mother’s allowance of £B4 10s a year, and a total children’s allowance of £7B a year. On a weekly basis that would be about £5 18s 6d a week for the plaintiff and four children. The Court might consider that the plaintiff should receive the‘ income from the whole of tne

estate during her lifetime. Mr E. M. Malley, for the trustees, Benjamin Bernard Martin, a farmer, of Domett, and Timothy Joseph O’Carroll, a farmer, of Woodgrove, said that they would abide by the decision of the Court. Mr R. A. Cuthbert appeared for the Public Trustee, as representative of the overseas beneficiaries; and Mr A. C. Perry for the children of the plaintiff, as beneficiaries under the will. His Honour said that the position of the daughter had not deteriorated since the death of the testator. Social security had made it easier for her. The testator had made provision for an impoverished group of relatives living in Ireland. They were at the moment in acute need, and their case had been made out. There would be no order.