HORSE TRAINER’S WILL

Grey River Argus, 30 November 1938, Page 3

HORSE TRAINER’S WILL

Wife’s Application

TO HAVE .TERMS ALTERED.

!' CHRISTCHURCH, 29. An application under the Family Protection Act for additional relief from the estate of the late Robert Derrett, of Riccarton, was made by his widow, Amelia Derrett, now-'of Rosebery, Sydney, in the Supreme Court yesterday, i The applicant, it was stated, Had ; in 1910. secured a judicial separation from her husband, Under whose'will, made in 1934. al» most the whole of a large estate wasbequeathed to the testator’s housekeeper.' ' ' " •' • ’ • Mr Justice North croft made an order that a capital sum of £lO5O be paid to the widow from the estate and- that her present annuity of £l5O should be so augmented as to make-t free of absentee tax or other deductions.

Mr J. D. Hutchinson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr A. W. Brown for the defendants, Lilian Weir (the principal beneficiary) and the executors. Mr E. P. Wills, appeared for the vicar and wardens of St. Peter’s Church, Upper Riccarton.- -y Mr Hutchinson explained that the testator, a retired horse trainer, died in" June, 1937, at the age of 84, leaving an estate valued at £15,118. After the payment of all duties the bequest to Mrs Weir was valued at £12,414. The plaintiff. and the testator 5 were married in 18^7/ but in 19'10 she petitioned the Court for judicial separation, which was granted, Mrs Derrett being allowed'alimony of £125 a-year, secured by deed. In 1927. this -vas increased to £l5O, not secured by deed, but which the executors had continued to pay since the death of the testator.- Counsel submitted that £l5O a year was .not proper maintenance in the circumstances, Mr and Mrs Derrett had lived together for 23 years, and it was during that time that the estate had, substantially, been built up." The plaintiff, who was now 74 and unable to work, had to have a daughter in attendance on her. She had worked’’ hard in the hotel and guest house previously owned by the testator. l Mrs Derrett had a.,cottage valued at £875 and mortgages brought the value of her capital assets up to £2535. These’were subject to a mortgage of £lO5O. Mr Hutchinson said that no order made by the Court could impose hardship on Mrs Weir, as she had a income of £2oo—a bigger income than that of the widow. Mr Brown said that Mrs Weir would consent willingly to any order securing the income tOf £l5O. The separation had been tantamount to divorce, and although in law they were tied together, in fact there had been no sympathy between Mr and Mrs Derrett for 28 years. His Honour said that the problem of the Court was to_• determine the duty of the testator, on the one hand, to his wife, from whom he had been separated (but, on the judgment of the Court, through his fault), and, on the other hand, to a Loyal and efficient housekeeper, who Inevertheless had had constant and satisfactory employment and had been well treated. His. Honour thought ‘ the-, testator, had allowed the events of. and preceding 1910 tb interfere with, his sense, of justice. The defendant.would have, to be. prepared to -accept a substantial reduction in the provision made for her by the testator. ■ i • . ?