A WILL CASE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 131, 6 June 1925, Page 6

A WILL CASE

CLAIM BY TESTATOR'S SON. Judgment has been given by his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, m the case in which application was made by the soii of a deceased testator for an order that the resettling'and exemplification of letters of administration with the will anexed be set aside. The will concerned was that of Paul Willcox, formerly a resident of New Zealand. Ho went with his wife on a visit to England, and on the voyage Home his wife died at sea on 16th Slay, 19X6. The husband proceeded on to England, and married there, two months after- . wards, one Ellen Willcox. The husband j returned to New Zealand in January, 1918, and remained there until June, 1918. He then returned to England, and again took ship to come back to New Zealand in May, 1925, but on tbo voyage out he died. He left a will, but no executor was appointed by the will. There appeared to have been an intention to appoint two trustees, but that was not formerly done, and on his death his wife applied for administration with the will annexed. This was granted to her by the Court of Probate in England. The wife's'attorney in New Zealand proceeded to apply for the reseating of the j letters of administration, and the letters [ were resealed. The eldest son of the first marriage then . lodged a cavratagainst the issue of the sealed exemplification to the Public Trustee, and the question was whether the Court had power to set aside the reseating which had been granted by the Registrar. The opinion of his Honour was that the Court had no power to set aside the resealing. If it could be shown that there had been any fraud in the will or by the administratrix, the Court was open to have the whole matter contested, and the validity of the appointment might be raised by a suit on proper grounds. The question at present was could the resealing that had been grained be set aside '! The children under the will, continued the judgment, had no jurisdiction to prevent the resealing of letters of administration. The motion was dismissed with costs £3 os. At the hearing, Mr. Roy appealed in support of the motion, which wss opposed by Mr. Watson.