“SHILLING’S WORTH OF FARTHINGS.”

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 26 June 1924, Page 3

“SHILLING’S WORTH OF FARTHINGS.”

CURIOUS LEGACIES OF AN EXCIVIL SERVANT.. Some curious bequests are made urn-1 der the will, recently proved, of a retired ( civil servant of Irisji descent, living in j the West of England. Among them are:— To two nephews living in Scotland, ‘•one shillingsworth 'of farthings between them.” To a person named, <; the poor orphan boy whom I was generous <sic) enough to take, educate, etc., receiving a poor return ror -my good intentions, 1 leave a shillingswortn of smalLest postage stamps.'" . To a niece he leaves the bulk oi his property, “on condition that she never oy word, act, or deed, 1 of any description has anything to do- with a man who is known by the alias “Bro. To another relative he leaves one shilling and half a collection of photographs. Of a brother to whom he makes a small bequest, he states, “he is not to have a single farthing or anything else from me except what is gijen to him above.” Such wills as these are rare* Some years ago a man left his wife one farthing, directing that- it should be sent to her by post in an unstamped envelope, as she had called him an old pig and many other names. At that time the receiver of such a letter would have been charged eighipeiice by the Post Office in respect of an unstamped letter containing coin. Another testator in tlie Midlands, some yeais ago, left his property to his daughter, on the condition that she paid to a person named the sum of threepence-halfpenny for the purchase of a hempen cord for halter for the use of his “dear” wife, “which I trust she may make use of without delay.” Another Midland testator not only

ft cut off” bis wife with the piwa'bia shilling, but directed that that sun should constitute her sole claim against Iris estate, and that any expenuse she might he put to in connection with his estate should bs met- out of her own pocket. It is on record that a railway official in the South oi England stated in his will: “My estate would have been considerably larger it it had not been for my unfortunate marriage' with cleverest known legal daylight robber. My associations with, this perambulating human vinegar cruet- I consider to have cost me considerably over £400.” Another husband who had attempted to obtain a divorce from his wife, but whose petition was not successful, left to her the sum of one shilling out of an estate of £72,000. It is not always spite that causes natural legatees to be excluded or "cut- off” with a nominal sum. A wealthy titled' banker, for mtsance, stated: “I have not given my son any interest in my residuary estate as 1 am satisfied that it is useless to give him property, for he would waste it in attracting around him companions of whom I should not approve; I am satisfied that he is irresponsible, but, that his wife, as long as she lives with him, will allow him to have what is necessary.” And there is the railuay millionaire. Mr G. M. Pullman, of Chicago, who restricted certain dr his sous to £6OO her annum, as they had not “developed" such a sense of responsibility as is requisite. -