UNWITTING INJUSTICE RIGHTED

Evening Star, Issue 18259, 26 April 1923, Page 4

UNWITTING INJUSTICE RIGHTED

TESTATOR’S WILL HAS UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES. (Pee United Press Association.] CR HISTC HTJRCH, April 24. Under the Family Plrotcction Act, in the, Supremo Court, before Mr Justice Adams to-day, Eleanor Elizabeth Hardy, ofRakaia, widow of the Hon. Charles Albert C. Hardy, M.L.C., Rakaia, who died in August, *1522. leaving estate valued at £20,0C0, applied for the expectant shares of two children under age- to be paid to her to assist in maintaining them up to twenty-one years of age, she being their guardian ad litem. Under the will testator left the furniture and personal effects to the widow, and directed tho trustees to allow her '.lie income from £4,0C0 during her lifetime, the sum to follow the residue on her death. The residue was loft to the testator’s five children, but ho provided that none should benefit until lie or she had reached the age of thirty years. In the event of a beneficiary dying before the age of thirty rears, his or her share is added to (he residue, but his or her children participate under the will.

Joined with Mrs Hardy as plaintiff were her children- —J. L. Hardy (engineering student), R. B. Hardy (Auckland, schoolmaster), and Elisabeth Joan Hardy (Rakaiaj. The defendants wore the executors under the will —Annie Watson Hardy (Rakaia), George S. Hardy (Kakaia, merchant), and J. L. Hardy. The children of whom Mrs Hardy was appointed guardian are C. S. Hardy and Margaret E. Hardy. Mr D. E. Wanklyn appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr E. W. White for the defendants.

Mr Wanklyn, in reply to His Honor, said all the nicniberiu.of the family were united in the application. The will provided that none 'of the children should benefit before the age of thirty years, and those who were under thirty years could not receive anv benefit at present, who, they needed it' for their education and to give them a start in life. -A. 11 _ the children were in court in their individual capacities. Mr White said two children had readied the age of thirty years, and had received their henefite under the will. There was no dissent amongst the members of the familv in respect to the application. All agreoS that the position should ho adjusted to prevent an injustice that testator never intended to inflict. The testator’s idea was to preserve the capital of each child’s fund, and he did not realise that no benefit .would accrue to any of the children until thev wove thirty. ilEs Honor said the most satisfactory course was for counsel to draft an older by which the income from the expectant shares of the children under age should be used for their maintenance and benefit until they carno of age ; and the income from the contingent sharc_ of each beneficiary should bo paid to him or her until the. age of thirtv years was readied. Members of the family now over age could file a consent to this order. H:s Honor believed he could make the order under the provisions of the Act.