TWO WIVES

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 81, 2 October 1924, Page 6

TWO WIVES

AND BENEFITS UNDER A WILL

CASE ON APPEAL.

A Christchurch case, which caused some interest in that there was an argument as to which of two wives was entitled to be regarded as the wife under a will, came before the Appeal Court this morning. The parties were Charlotte Jane Collins (Mr. O. T. J. Alpers), the Dominion Trust Company (Mr. D. J. Morison), Emily Sophia Collins (Mr. A. T. Donnelly), and several beneficiaries or relatives (Mr. W. R. Lascelles). The will i n dispute was'that of Frederick William Collins, lately a Christchurch baker, and the estate was valued at about £1878 2s 9d. In 1919 deceased married Emily Sophia Collins, and lived with her as his wife until his death in 1922. A will was made in favour of the second wife, and immediately afterwards deceased was taken to hospital, where he was operated on. Some days later he made another will. Instead of leaving all his property, simply, to his second wife, he left to a beneficiary, who was referred to as "my wife," an annuity of £150 per annum leaving the estate otherwise in the hands of trustees to go to the benefit of nieces. The testator later died, and it was then shown that he already had, at the time of his second marriage, a wife named Charlotte Jane Collins, of England, whom he had married in 1885, and had deserted some four years later. After the hearing in the' Supreme Court Mr. Justice Adams found that the words "my wife" in the last will referred to Emily Sophia. He also decided that the first wife was entitled to provision from the estate under the Family Protection Act.

The appeal was on the grounds that the finding was wrong on the facts, and in law. Mr. Alpers suggested that the finding had been arrived at on suppositions. He submitted that the testator, having faced death in his operation, might have thought again of the wife of his earlier manhood, and have decided to make his wife in his will ambiguous, so that if the first wife found out about his will she could fight it out with the second.

Mr. Justice Stringer remarked that there was no conjectural possibility that' the testator intended to leave his money to the woman in England. Mr. Justice Sim stated that the earlier will, which was revoked, was referred to, and had to be considered.. In it the testator referred to "my wife" as Emily Sophia Collins. Mr. Alpers contended that "lawful" did not have to be read into a will, but that the Court did not have power to read in the word "unlawful" in this case.

Legal argument as to the admissibility of evidence in the case was then proceeded with.

The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) pointed out that the second marriage might not have been illegal. The testator had married the second time, after having been separated from his first wife for many years. If he had considered her dead, his second marriage might have been quite legal.

(Proceeding.)