FARMER’S WILL ALTERED.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 24 June 1929, Page 7

FARMER’S WILL ALTERED.

JUDGE AWARDS SON AN ANNUITY OP £SOO ESTATE WORTH £340,000. AUCKLAND, Last Night. In a reserved judgment in the Supreme Court on Saturday, AI r. .Justice Bin;i’ increased the annuity of Widiam Bell, farnmr, of Auckland, from £lO4 to £SOO, payable from the estate of his father, the late Alexander Bell, also a farmer of Auckland, whose estate was tallied at £540,000. William Bell was plaintiff in an application und( r the Family Protection Act. Tile Judge said it was estimated that; after legacies ami annuities were provided for, the residue of the estate, when it was divided up after ton years, would amount to £105,000 and each grandchild would receive approximately £20,000. The widow of testator had an annuity .of £IOOO and he understood she v.as applying tor further provision. Two married daughters received £SOO each ami two other daughters received £lO,000 and £20,000 respectively. In the original will, plaintiff was granted an annuity of £2OO 'and his wife one of £IOOO but under a codicil, the sum granted plaintiff was reduced to £lO4 per annum, while the wife’s 1 .annuity was revoked. In a further codicil, testator bequeathed £SOO to each «f Ids grandchildren but made an exception in the case of the sons of plaintiff. Plaintiff became ill and had received medical attention and one could have imagined, his Honour said, (hat in those circumstances the wealthy father could have done more, than leave him in pubiic hospitals, which were not intended to be tilled by persons who could easily afford private nursing and attention.

“I. mention this fact.” said the Judge, "as some further indication of the mentality of testator and his ideas or his duty towards his family and the State.” ! i was admitted his Honour said, that plaintiff had been addicted to drinking but it was to be remembered that as a young man. he had more or b ss staved for Ids father and saved all the money lie could. “ There might b<‘ some excuse for indulgence,” said his Honour, “in what to some persons is foolishly looked upon as help to forget their troubles.” Colour was lent to the suggestion that the cause of the father’s differential treatment of his son was based on tlm religion of his wife. Tn giving judgment, his Honour made •< provision that if the money granted by the annuity was mis-spent on excessive drinking, the grant could, be paid In trustees for the maintenance of plaintiff.