UNUSUAL WILL CASE

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 53, 26 November 1929, Page 12

UNUSUAL WILL CASE

ADOPTED SON’S CLAIM FAILS FURTHER SEARCH ADVISED ,•■ ■ • I Dominion Special Service. Auckland, November 25. The difficulties of William John Carr King in establishing his legal adoption over 50 years ago by John Carr King and his wife, Hnth King, were again ventilated in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Smith. It was stated that estate to the value of about £5OO depended upon proof of his - adoption. Plaintiff was the New Zealand Insurance Company (Mr. Wilkin), who sought the Court’s interpretation of the will of John Carr King. Mr. Sinclair appeared for the adopted son William John Carr King, and Mr. Johnstone for the Public Trustee, as trustee for the other beneficiaries under the will. Plaintiff’s Case. Mr. JVilkin said William John Carr King had been adopted by testator and bis wife in 1877. There was no Adoption of Children Act until 1881. The boy lived with his adopted parents at Avondale, and worked for them in their nursery. In an affidavit he swore that there had been two documents of adoption, one in possession of his piother, and one a Court document. On June 7, 1907, a solicitor (Mr. Griffiths) drew the will of testator, who died in November, 1911. The will provided that upon the death of the testator’s wife, the homestead should go to testator’s adopted son, and provision was also made for other relatives. The widow, Ruth King, died last 'year, leaving the whole of her estate to her adopted son. The trustees sought guidance as to the ultimate destination of the residuary estate other than the homestead. The will did not decide what should be done with the residue in the event of the adopted son surviving the widow, as had actually happened. He thought there could be no question as to the merits of the sou’s claim., but the onus was on him to prove that he was legally entitled. The value of the estate was not more than between £2090 and £3OOO. Counsel said the son could not produce proof of his adoption, as his papers had been destroyed in a fire last year. All possible sources had been searched for proof without avail. Unfortunately the Auckland Court records from 1881 to 1890 were so incomplete as to be quite inconclusive. Mr. Johnstone: That is not so. Mr. Wilkin: I refer to the affidavit of Mr. Malfroy. Mr. Johnstone: He has since said he has traced those papers. You had better have Mr. Malfroy here. Mr. Wilkin said he knew nothing of anything that had transpired since the search was made. He indicated considerable evidence that went to show that the son had been legally adopted. Mr. Sinclair said there was intestacy of the estate as regarded the residue, and if the son was legally adopted then the residue would go to him. Adoption Not Established. Mr. Johnstone said he agreed there was intestacy under the will. The question of adoption was one that could not be conveniently tried in that Court. The son had not established his-legal adoption, as it was obligatory upon him to do. Plaintiff, William John Carr King, was wholly mistaken as to what had taken place. . . His Honour said it was quite clear that intestacy had arisen as to the residue of the property other than the homestead. With regard to the adopion. it seemed impossible to come to a certain conclusion upon the affidavits as they stood. He was not satisfied that sufficient search had yet been made, and it was possible that more light might be thrown on the position. If no further evidence was discovered he was of opinion that legal adoption bad Oat beat proved. 4f