DISPUTED AHAURA WILL.

Grey River Argus, 16 October 1922, Page 2

DISPUTED AHAURA WILL.

GARTH FAMILY’S SUIT. AGAINST CHIEF BENE- j FICIARY. INTERESTING CASE AT WELLINGTON.

(By Telegraph.—Special to “ Argus.”) WELLINGTON, October 14. An interesting, namely, a testator’s family maintenance case, in which a family well known in Greymouth and district figured, was heard before Mr Justice Reed yesterday, when Ellen Maud Garth, spinster; Dorothea Garth, spinster; Hilda O’Neill, married; Margaret Ada Hawkins, married; and Emily Quayle, married; proceeded, by originating summons, against Henry Easton Garth, of Auckland, bank clerk, claiming further provision under their father's will. The plaintiffs wore all the daughters of Thomas Henry Garth, of Ahaura, who died in June, 1921, leaving a. will, whereby he left £lOOO to two of his sons, £5OO to his eldest daughter (now Mery Easton Currie, wife of Peter Currie, Opotiki, sheep farmer), £2OO to each of the other daughters, and the residue to Henry Easton Garth. Mr P. J. O '.Regan, of Wellington, appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr Crombie, for the defendant, while Mr Perry represented Thomas Edward Garish; who, with Mrs Currie, and two other married sisters, had been joined, on the Court’s order, :s nominal defendants. The total value of the estate exceeded £lO,OOO, and, after paying legacies, Hie principal defendant, who was the eldest son, took about £6OOO, the residue having been augmented by tho fact that Samuel Edward Garth, another brother, had been killed in action at the Somme, ami his shale thus falling

into the residue. ; The two married sisters, who had been joined as the nominal defendants, i Mrs Stark (Dunedin) and Mrs Robin- ■ son (Wanganui') declined to make any I claim. | Air O’Regan, in the course of his outline of the case, .said that the late I Mr Garth was an esteemed ami well- ; known resident of Ahaura, ami the fam- j ily was, in every respect, an exemplary j one; but the father, who had attain- I ed the age of 82, had evidently possess- ; ed the old-fashioned idea of the prior I claim of the oldest son on his bounty. I He had made his will in 1907, without -J any professional assistance, and he ■; (counsel) would venture to say that no ■ member of the legal profession ■would take the responsibility for preparing :i will which gave such an undue advantage to one member of the family. Even the eldest son had virtually admitted that the will was against his conscience, for he had : Minified making a promise to make a further allowance to his two sisters, after the real property had been sold. He had declined to state, however, to what extent lie would assist them, and, accordingly, the sisters Were not prepared to allow the time to pass within which proceedings could be taken. Mr Perry said that his client had lost all his portion, having embarked into a hotel business, which had proved disastrous, and hence, though lie made no claim for himself, he considered that the benefit he had taken under his father’s will should not bo reduced. Air Crombie argued that the ci re um- I stances of the plaintiffs were such that i the will should not be disturbed by | the Court. The Judge intimated that he would probably give his decision on Monday.