COMPLICATED CASE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 28, 3 February 1914, Page 4

COMPLICATED CASE

THREE MARRIAGES AND A WILL. (IT TELEOP.tPH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, 2nd February. A complicated set of circumstances wero revealed in a will case, brought before Mr. Justice Cooper at' tho Supremo Court this morning. Application was made for an order declaring A.nnio A. Henley intestate, and appointing Alexander Henley, her husband, administrator of the estate. It was shown in ovidenco that deceased had beon three times married, but no proof of the validity of tho two latter marriages was available. Tho first husband went to Australia, there being no issue of tho marriage, and, after a. continued absenco under the beb'cf that ho died, deceased went through a form of marriage with another mart. The parties lived together for some years, and four children were born. Thcn^ they were involved in some domestic disputes at Wanganui resulting in a separation order, and it was later discovered that tho first husband was alivo in Sydney. That was in 1903 or 1904. The marriage between plaintiff and deceased took place some seven years later. Ono child was born, and deceased, Annie Henloy, died in July last year. The property in tho estate is estimated at £1200. Deceased made a will in 1908, leaving the property to plaintiff and the children of the becond marriage, but this document she. revoked by a will in 1909. She then got possession of the later one "from her solicitors, and apparently destroyed it. In 1912 she gavo instructions for a new will be prepared, but this was never signed. A declaration of intestacy was therefore asked for. The four childfon of tho second marriage and the child of the third marriage wero joined as defendants. His Honour pointed out that tho difficulty to bo faced was tho validity of tho marriage between plaintiff and deceased. If the first hu&band was dead at the timo of fcho second marriage, the second husband, who was fctill alive, was the legal widower, but, if ho was alive then and still surviving at the time of the third marriago, the plaintiff and his child wore oufc of Court. Thcro was evidence to show that ho was alivo when tho second marriage wa-s contracted, though there was tho honost belief that ho was dead. There was, however, no evidence at all to show whether ho was still living when tho third marriago took place. Evidence on that point Was important, and ho suggested that the case bo adjourned for further onquines to be made. Counsel adopted the suggestion*