SHARE OF ESTATE

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30466, 13 June 1964, Page 20

SHARE OF ESTATE

More For Son Mr Justice Macarthur in a reserved judgment yesterday awarded David Hewer, lineman, a three-sevenths share of his mother’s estate. 5 Hewer (Mr G. R. Lascelles) • had brought an action in the Supreme Court for a greater . share of the estate than the • one-seventh given under the will. The defendants were John David Kennedy, civil servant, and Michael Frederick Hobbs, solicitor, trustees and executors first defendants (Mr M. F. Hobbs); Garth John Hewer and- Keri Yvonne Hewer, infant children, second defendants (Mr A. R. Harman); and Albert Whitehead, council foreman, Rhnanga, Harry Whitehead, mine electrician. . Runanga. Patrick Whitehead, fitter, Blaketown. and Ronald .Oates, railway welder. Greymouth, third defendants (Mr R. G. Blunt). His Honour said the plain- ; tiff, David Hewer, was the adopted son and only child of the testatrix whose net estate was about £4900. Most of the estate had been derived from the estate of her husband and she had in effect divided her estate into seven equal parts, her son ’to receive one-seventh, his two infant children a seventh each, and her four adult nephews a seventh each. { At the time of the testatrix’s death the plaintiff had been receiving £l4 Ils 8d ■ gross and was still purchasing his home built on a section his father had given him. He still owed £1450 on the house and £345 on his secondhand car. Counsel had conceded that till the time of the plaintiff’s marriage in 1954 he and his mother, the testatrix, had been on good terms and in all respects he had been a dutiful son. Both parents had indicated their intention of leaving the major part of their estate to the plaintiff and the testatrix . had done so in a will made in 1957. In her last will in 1960 the testatrix had told her solicitor she felt her son was neglecting her and she wished to deprive him of any benefit from the estate. In spite of her solicitor’s advice not to do anything unfair the will bad been drawn up as she had wished. The testatrix had no proper justification for her changed attitude toward her son. His Honour ordered that the plaintiff’s share should be increased from one-seventh to three-sevenths and that the bequests to the children should remain unchanged at one-seventh each. The remaining two-sevenths were to be divided equally between the four nephews.