DISPUTED WILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 11451, 27 February 1931, Page 7

DISPUTED WILL.

DAUGHTERS CLAIM FURTHER v PROVISION - MANUTUKE ACTION BEFORE SUPREME COURT Further provision, under' the will of their father, Robert Hepburn, deceased, late of Manutuke, farmer, was sought iu the Supremo Court yesterday by two of liis daughters, Elsie May Carnegie and Annie F'raneesi Lentell (Mr L.. T. Burnavd). who proceeded against the Public Trustee (Mr Blatlnvayt) for an originating summons under the Family Protection': Act.

Mr Burnard, in. opening, said the two' plaintiffs are two out of four - children of the deceased. Thg deceased purchased-a farm, op January 1, 1915. At that time, the eldest of the twp daughters npw making.the application' was • about 17 years' and the other about 15 years. The son who is really the principal party in the action;, was then a boy of eleven years at school. The deceased was a good father, and the family always worked well together. The daughters assisted to work oil the farm'. Mrs' Lentell suffered some disability ancT did the inside work, and Mrs Carnegie did the outside work. In 1915 the father, Mr Hepburn,, had not a great deal of finance and could not employ labor. But in later years lie became better off. ‘The. property was a small one 1 ;" and on it they' ran 22 cows ail'd each year planted potatoes and maize. For the first year Mrs Carnegie and her father between them milked 22 cows. Each milked eleven cows &iid did so throughout the year. She assisted with the potatoes and maize. The harvesting was done by the family. Later the two younger children learned to milk but could not do anything .tliat year, flight up to the time of Mrs Carnegie's marriage in 1921, slie was the principal outside milker, and her father called her his “right hand man.'' The son did 'not leave school until 1918, when lie was 'fifteen years of age. The mother took a great interest in the garden, especially the flower garden, and exhibited at shows, etc. From 1915 to 1921 the number of cows varied from 22 to 2G, but during the whole, of that time Mrs Carnegie was always the principal assistant on the farm. Her father expressed his pleasure at her work to several neighbours. Mr Hepburn died in 1928,' one year after Mrs Lentil’s marriage. He" left a n ill. The son got the land and stock, and the daughters the interest deceased had in his father’s estate, together with £4OO. The value of the estate taken by the son is approximately £2300. The total value of the two daughters’ share came to £BSO. The son had accumulated between £2OO and £3OO and the father also took out for him as an infant a life policy for 21000, pay- j able at thirty-live years. If they took tlie total value of the policy, and things allowed to accumulate _ at: £SOO, it mean that he was getting' £2BOO, against the girls’ £BSO. It was reasonable that the two girls should receive one-tliird of the total gifts to their brother. The girls received nothing during the time they worked except half a crown a week, but in the winter each received a costume. It was a happy home. Each girl received one good holiday during the time she remained on the farm. Mr Hepburn’s father’s estate was approximately worth £6300. of which ho. received twosevenths. The estate was not administered for _ several . years. One of the assets in the deceased’s father’s estate, of whicli his share was £430. was now reduced by £2OO. in.: settlement of a mortgage. The effect of that reduction was that each girl got £76 less. Elsie'; Mary Carnegie, wife of John Carnegie, of Gisborne, drover, iu cross-examination by Mr. Blathwayt, on her affidavit, gave details of the work she had done on the farm, The property is a small dairy farm of 48 acres. The cropping * was to make tlie property self-supporting Her father always treated her well, hut he forced her to do the work lio wanted! done. Thcv had to milk twice a day and did not have much time for leisure. In the spare .time plaintiff did all her own sewing. When she married in 1921 no further labor was engaged on the property. After 1919 her brother assisted on the farm and' did so, with the assistance of plaintiff’s sister, until their father’s death. She had never heard that her brother was to got the whole of tlie farm; property after her father’s death. It was hard to believe that her father had made such a statement. Her brother got money every week from the fowls and had nothing to pay for the feed, The amount of her brother’s insurance should total about’ £IOOO.- Sh had no idea of the value of the policy at her father’s death. She never consulted a solicitor in. regard to the will as sh© did not think it was possible to make a claim. She was extremely dissatisfied. At a meeting after her father’s fui’tral tlie will was read out by her uncle. She did not hear him ask if everybody were satisfied. She did not understand the will and therefore could not express any opinion on it. A dispute arose owing to plaintiff’s husband being put 'off the property. Since then her husband had taken two .sets of proceedings. Any further action taken by plaintiff depended on her solicitor. To Mr, Burnard: Her husband had taken a lease of the property for. a number of years and that was terminated and the two actions arose in consequence. Her father died under, very tragic circumstances, and they were very much upset. The halfcrown a week was really an allowance, her father stating lie would make it up to them later on.

Annie Francos Leutolfi the other plaintiff, also cross-examined by Mr. Blathwayt on lier affidavit, gave answers on similar linos. Her other sister, Mrs. Graham, milked, three or four cows also, in addition to those milked by her eldest sister.. Slio did not know the contents of the will properly till about two and a-half years ago. Mr. Burnard then called James Haskins,' dairyfarmor, Mamitukc, who said ho had a farm on the opposite side of the road to the deceased. Each side in action find asked him to attend . Tie remembered Mr. Hepburn coining to the property. His principal assistants in the work* were the girls. The principal assistant was Mrs. Carnegie. He would describe her as a very willing worker and very good indeed.. 1 Her father praised her to witness describing her as liis “right hand man.” She was Ins main help. No; one took her place when she left to get married. Witness believed that when Mr Hepburn first took up the place lie had very little finance to come and go on, but tilings steadily improved. When Mr. Hepburn was ill the son was then -working there and also Mr. Carnegie, who was a good worker. To Mr. Blathwayt: Mr.. Hepburn used, to discuss things fairly .regularly with witness. He was a just and a level-headed man. The son used to work without -wages, in fact, all on the farm were, but the son _ got “perks” in the way of eggs t ete. J-.iom what Mr. Hepburn said 'vitdess gathered that the son was to receive the property . after. liis . death.,- Mr. Hepburn was always very consider--atejto his family. The -family was a vo*p fine family, happy and united, now they arc divided and tuon* imations hostile. . T Mr. Blathwayt said he appeared for (the Public Trustee’ but the reat de, rfendant was Robert Kenneth Hepburn./ As Mr. Hepburn died in 1923, the first matter / was ip obtain an extension of time, but it was opposed on the following grounds.: (1) A period of seven years /■>.'•/ v : ,\-v , - vj-w'-.v,

had elapsed; (2) There was no nonest ignorance as to their rights; (,•») -Even if they wore ignorant it was their duty to ascertain tusirr it'll Is within a reasonable time; if) jhufc thc\ were satisfied with the share given them; and the real reason foi the application is that the last year the parties have been involved m disputes and their relations are hostile. Finally, counsel submitted that there* has been a change in the circumstance .since the date of death, in other words, that the .estate has been distributed. Counsel then proceeded to enlarge on these points. Had the application been made . m proper time, continued counsel, it could have been made }irst out of tilil residuary estate, and the Court would not have interfered with specific requests. All that is left pi tho hands of the Public Trustee is the son’s farm properly. -The whole estate liad been distributed, lie submitted there wore not sufficient grounds to errand • an extension. He contended that the deceased allocated his estate on his moral claims, and then what was over was given to the widow absolutely. _ As had liccn stated 'in one case, it. might; have been a‘kinder act -to give more, but he was not required to give' more. He apparently thought it wiser to give tho son the property straight out. There was no urgency as recards proper maintenance, and any provision is purely a. future provision which may not have citeot for a number of years No payment could be made until the death ol tho widow, as plaintiffs did not desno to interfere with -the widow s ,estUThe further 1 heading was then adjourned till to-day. • .