The Plimmer Will Case.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8074, 26 August 1905, Page 5

The Plimmer Will Case.

Widow's Application for Increased Allowance.

A Lump Snni Granted.

Judgment was given by the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Coooper in the case- of Plimmer against PJimrser, a suit by the widow of. the late John Slimmer for' an increased allowance from the deceased's estate, from whieii she had; drawn £150 per annum under a deed of mutual separation executed' 30 years ago; His Honour the Chief Justice found that what was an adequate provision for a young woman 30 years ago was not adequate for a woman grown old in days when cost of living had. largely increased! and when she required ex-tra- attendance and nursing; It hadl been said that the deed of separation stood in the way of the court acting-;under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act,, but His Honour found that the words- "during such separation," which, occur and recur throughout the separation deed, made the provision terminate with Johni Plimmer?s; dfeath; there could be no- liability of John: Plimmer 'if his wife contracted1 debts after his death. Th« application- was not barred by the covenant. But even if this present proceeding were in- the words of the covenant a proceeding " during such separation " His Honour was of opinion that the words of the covenant were not wide enough to. cover a- proceeding such as this under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act of 1900. A deed or covenant must be construed in reference to things that exist at its date. No doubt its language might be so large as to anticipate future events, but in such a case the language must be clear and express. His Honor, in making an allowance,, said that having consideration of the position of the estate and the stipulations of the will for its disposition, he was of opinion that It was better to allow a lump suni to the widow, allowing her to invest it as. an annuity or in any other way she thought fit—buying a house for herself, etc. Seeing her great age, and that the statute provided the sum must be for maintenance, the sum could not be a large one. The Court could not award any sum to make up to her for her scanty maintenance in the past. The very smallest sum that should be provided, in addition to -the widow's allowance under the will—which must continue—was £1000. That sum must be paid at once. The order must be that th"c amount was "to come out of the estate of the testator." Costs would be ullowed to plaintiff as between solicitor and client, with witnesses' expenses and disbursements.

Mr Justice Cooper doubted whether a lump sum as suggested by the Chief Justice ought to be paid to plaintiff as " an adequate provision for her proper maintenance." The very wide discretion vested in the Court probably gave it jurisdiction to make the order proposed by the Chief Justice, and he was not prepared to dissent from His Honor, but he concurred with hesitation, because he felt that there was very grave doubt whether in the exercise of its discretion the Court ought in this case to make such an order, and whether the Court ought to do any more than order a moderate 'annual payment to be made to the plaintiff during the remainder of her life, in addition to the £150 a year provided under the deed. .