DAUGHTER’S CLAIM

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 31 March 1936, Page 2

DAUGHTER’S CLAIM

CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT FAMILY PROTECTION ACT (By Telegraph—Press Association) WELLINGTON, This Day. The case McMaster v. Cunningham and others, was continued at the Court of Appeal to-day. Mr C. S. Thomas, for appellant, submitted that Mr Justice Northcroft’s discretion was exercised on erroneous principles and if proper principles had been applied an order should have been made in favour of appellant. This was not an application by some of the testator’s grandchildren, but by their mother and was iprimarily for herseljf. Even if advances were made to her children, they could only be used for their maintenance, advancement, education or benefit. Her position, at the date of her father’s death entitled her to an order and any right she had was not affected by discretionary power vested in the trustee to make advances to her children. Testator’s estate was large and wealthy enough, to make, adequate provision for all persons having a claim under the Family Protection Act. Gifts which had been given to appellant’s husband or benefits received from her mother should not be taken into account, because they had not been made by deceased. The financial embarrassment of his estate should not exonerate testator from the duty he owed towards appellant. It was shown by evidence that the loss of assets received by appellant during her father’s lifetime was due to misfortune. Mr Thomas further submitted that the duty of a parent to provide for a child is continuous and might arise at the date of death, notwithstanding gifts made during the parent’s lifetime which did not divest him of that duty. Mr Lascelles, for respondents, other than the trustee, submitted Mr Justice Northcroft had exercised his discretion upon right and sound principles. (Proceeding)