THE WIDOW'S CLAIM HER HUSBAND'S ESTATE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 11, 13 July 1914, Page 3

THE WIDOW'S CLAIM HER HUSBAND'S ESTATE.

SUPREME COURT DECISION. The suit of a, widow and her two daughters for relief out of the estate of the husband, a deceased storekeeper, formed the subject of a judgment delivered by his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert (Stout) 'on Saturday. The plaintiffs were Bridget Moriarty and her daughters (Mrs. Purdy, Mrs. Henderson, and i\lrs. Linehan), and the defendants, John Joseph Mead and another. His Honour said that the case was an application, under the Family Protection Act, 1908, by the widow" and three daughters of the testator, the late William Moriarty,' of Garterton. The testator was a storekeeper, and left a short will dated 16th July, 1912. It left £1500, free of legacy duty, to a lady, who was miscalled his grand-niece, but who was no relation of his, and the residue to his two sons-in-law, who lived in the United States. The first legatee had been in the testator's employ for many years and made a claim on the estate for £500 for overdue wages. This claim was not before the Court and should not be considered iii the present application. It was not denied t^at the legatee was a faithful servant ot the deceased, who had given her property some years before he died, amounting in value to about £400. She had it still and had started a, drapery business in Carterton. She had also received Jbouu, in part payment, from the Public Trustee. After paying some of the debts and other claims upon the estate only about JtioiuO was left ; and it appeared that the conduct of the business of , the deceased ' since he died was not successful, and that the loss of his control was in1 jurious to it. | The widow of the deceased was 73 ' years of age when he died, and was ' witnout. means, and her daughters were in poor circumstances. > There was no explanation why they were deserted by the testator ; but the fact that her sons-in-law had helped the family in the past \no doubt explained why they were made residuary legatees. They were willing that the widow should be paid oOs a week ; but counsel for the first legatee objected to her legacy being encroached upon. His Honour said the widow was entitled to proper maintenance, and the proper allowance would be a lump sum with which she could purchase an annuity. To give her 30s a week would ! mean locking up half the property as ' security, or buying her an annuity. He fixed the allowance at £500, and allowed her twenty , guineas costs. The daughj ters would have the following allowances: — Mrs. Purdy £200, Mrs. Hender- ' son £100, and Mrs. Linehan' £luu, 'with ten guineas costs. The first legacy was charged with the £500, arid the residue j with the £400 and the costs. No costs , were allowed to the legatees, and the 1 Public Trustee must charge his against the estate. Mr. Evans appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. D. M. Findlay for the residuary 1 legatees, Mr. Putnam for the first legatee and Mr. J. W.'Macdonald for the Public i Trustee.