ESTATE CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 10 September 1937, Page 6

ESTATE CLAIM

PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED

(Per'Press Association —Copyright)

AUCKLAND, September 9

“I personally think the law is inequitable, and in this case, I think tt will work an injustice,” said Mr Justice Ostler, in the Supreme Court, in non-suiting a married woman, who brought a claim against tho executors of an estate. Plaintiff was Mrs Sarah Lizzie Sutherland, who claimed £223 from It. P. Towle and A. N. Cooper, solicitors, as. executors and trustees of the estate of Alexander Hastings, a retired baker.

Plaintiff alleged that from 1930 to July, 1935, she did domestic and nursing services for Hastings and his wife, and purchased articles and paid train and train fares on their account. She claimed that her services were given at the request of Hastings or his wife on the express understanding that payment should be made by a provision in Hastings’ will. He died in March, 1938, leaving estate valued at £2911. Plaintiff said there was no provision for her in the will. “I think there was a contract but it is not enforceable,” said his Honour. The law stated clearly that a person who did work for a testator on the understanding that he would be paid by a legacy under a will, had no claim against the executors if the testator failed to make provision in the will. He regretted he had no option but to grant the non-suit moved for because the law on the point was vorv clear.

“A Judge is sworn to do justice according to the law, and not in accordance with his own personal idea of justice,” his Honour added.