SON’S APPEAL

Northern Advocate, 7 June 1933, Page 7

SON’S APPEAL

PROVISION UNHCR WILL. INCREASE DESIRED. D ECIS LON RESERVED. (Per Press Association.—Copyright.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Better provision out of the estate of William Alfred Liverton, sheep farmer, deceased, was sought by William Charles Liverton, station hand, or Pakowai, in the .Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr .Justice MacGregor. Testator left an estate valued at over £10(1,(1(11.1. Eight counsel were briefed on behalf of various interests. It was stated for the trustees that they had decided simply to abide by the judgment of the Court. They did not propose taking any active part in either opposing or supporting the claim.

Counsel, for plaintiff said that testator died aged t)l years. The residue of tin* estate at present was £48,001), but on the death of testator’s widow a further £28,000 would fall into residue. Pin in tiff was 01 years of age. If he followed medical advice he would he thrown bach on his income of approximately £l4O a year, which he derived from a trust fund under the will. He had annual expenses to meet for the maintenance of his only surviving son, and, provided the rate remained as at present, he had left a net income of £IOO out of the fund.

Testator married three times, counsel stated, and some of the beneficiaries belonged to each of the three families. Lump Sum or Annuity. Counsel submitted that plaintiff should be granted a lump sum of £2OOO and that his annuity should be increased to £BOO. If the Court was of opinion that it should not allow a lump sum, then it was suggested that plaintiff should receive £SOO or £OOO a vear.

Counsel for the trustees pointed out that in assessing the income from the estate, or even in assessing the value of the residue, the figures handed in to the Court must be taken as purely paper figures that were not likely to be .realised under present conditions.

Counsel 1 oi' some other beneficiaries contended that there liiul been uo breach of testator’s moral duty to tlio applicant, and no want of appreciation of liis claim. It was submitted that tlie clainmnt bad not discharged the onus of showing that he had not received proper provision under the will.

Counsel for another beneficiary maid the view taken by his client was that, the will should be altered only to the extent of repairing any defects in testator’s duty to the applicant.

Alter hearing further argument His Honour reserved decision.