INCOME UNDER WILL

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 159, 1 April 1930, Page 15

INCOME UNDER WILL

INCREASE SOUGHT Au appeal by Isabell Sheppard Polson, widow, of Wellington, against an order made by Mr. Justice MacGregor in an action against Donald Murray Polson, Jessie Polson and Elsie Torrence Bright, all of Wellington, was conK iuenced in the Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon. On the Bench were their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice Blair, and Air. Justice Smith. Mr. E. P. Hity represented appellant, Mr. T. C. A. Hislop respondents, and Mr. C. Taylor (of the Crown Law Office) appeared for the Attorney-General. The facts as outlined were that appellant was the widow of Angus James Neville Polson’ late of Wellington, who died at Auckland on December 4. 1927. Deceased’s will directed that his various assets should be sold and after certain small gifts to charities had. been made, the balance was to be divided —a fifth share to be given to appellant. The defendants were each to be entitled to a similar fifth share, the remaining fifth share to be given to charities. Deceased's estate at the time of his death was valued at approximately £5380. In May, 1929, appellant brought an originating summons under the Family Protection Act for further provision out of the estate. The case was heard before Mr. Justice' MacGregor, who ordered that appellant should receive so long as she remained unmarried an annual income on the fifth share given to charities, in addition to the income given by the will. The appeal was brought on the ground that the allowance was insufficient. Mr. Hay submitted that Mr. Justice MacGregor had failed to give due consideration to the shrinkage that would take place in the income when the assets were realised. Considering the age of the assets —all freehold properties in the city-—they were producing a very high return in proportion to the capital. The will directed that the assets should be sold at the best prices which could be obtained, and it was obvious that when they were sold, appellant’s income would be considerably decreased. The Chief Justice intimated that the sole question appeared to ho whether the widow had been left adequately provided for, having regard to the testator’s property and her own position. When Mr. Taylor named the charities referred to in the will the Chief Justice remarked that charity began at borne, and that the first duty of a person of small estate was to his wife and family. Appellant’s income at the present time, said ME Hay. was between £3 and £3 10/- a week. The case will be resumed this morning.