WIFE’S CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 1 October 1929, Page 3

WIFE’S CLAIM

FOR -LARGER ANNUITY. / (By, Telegraph—Press Association); AUCKLAND, Sept. 30. A claim lor the increase, of ai/annuity under the will.-of her husband, the late Alexander Bell, was made,by Mrs Jessie Alberta. Bell, in the Supreme, Court to-day,. It was sLated Jiat the gross value of the estate was £344,590. The death duties totalled 4)80,000. The testamentary expenses amounted to £IO,OOO. The deceased was very well known, lie having amassed liis fortune chiefly as the owner of farm property in various parts of the North island. He died in July, 1928. The plaintiff was his second wife, and she married the testator in 1913. In his will tlie testator left the plaintiff £750 a year, but by a codicil, this was increased to £IOOO, with a proviso that it should be reduced.rto £SOO a year in the event of liis wife’s remarriage. The trustees were directed to set apart £60,000 for the payment of an-; nuities, and, as each annuitant’s iiiter-j est- expired, the portion of the fund; producing the annuity was to fall into! the- residue of the estate, - which total-; led £150,44 . The whole of this resi-j due, together with the accumulated*in-1 come, was to go to the gfand-cliildrehi living -tCn years after' the testator’sdeath. 1 ’ ' !■

It* was Stated 'that 'thirteen r grand-' children were now alive. The plaiiitil was living, in a ten-rgomed house'in Upland Road, Remuera; left to her by' the testator. The house was surrounded by four and three-quarter acres of land, the property being valued at £5,500. In an affidavit, the plaintiff said that the amount allowed her under the will was not sufficient to provide for her in the way that her husband did during his life time. Cross-examined, the plaintiff said that her capital assets were valued at over £9OOO. This sum included gas' shares (£1095), bank shares . (£132). house and lalnd (£o,500), furniture .(£600), shop premises (£1100) and a motor car valued at about £640.

When questioned, the plaintiff .said that she was forty years of age, and her husband died at the age Of 84. The marriage certificate was produced, j showing the plaintiff’s age in 1916 as.; 32, but plaintiff said that it really be 28 years. The application for the increase of: the annuity was opposed by Mr John- - stone, on behalf of the thirteen, grandchildren of the testator, and by. Mr Richmond, Mrs Jan-; et Taylor >nd , Ali;s, r ..Jgne, Laird, the' daughter of • th£ hestatory > They submitted that the testator had discharged all of .his -jnojaL obligation to his wife in leaving her his house, property and £IOOO a year. If tlie court made any extension of .the will or grant to the plaintiff, jti .would/create- a breach of the understood principles of. the Testators’ Family Maintenance Act. It would be a-dangerous, step beyond the authorities laid-down -in Australia and New Zealand. :: • .. The case was adjourned until'to-mor-row. . • ' -•