A WIDOW'S ALLOWANCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12954, 25 August 1905, Page 6

A WIDOW'S ALLOWANCE.

PLIMMER V. PLIMMER. r«V TELEGRAPH. — rBESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, Thursday. Jojjgmknx was given by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Cooper, to-day, in the case of Plimmer v, Plimmer, a suit by the widow of the late John Plimmer for an increased allowance from deceased's estate, from which she had drawn £150 per annum under deed of mutual separation, executed 30 years ago. 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 the cost of living had largely increased, and when she required extra attendance and nursing. It, had been said that the deed of separation stood in the way of the Court acting under the Testators' Family Maintenance Act, but His Honor found that the words, "during such .separation," which occur and recur throughout the separation deed, made the provision terminate with John Plimmer's death. lis Honor was of opinion that the words of the covenant were not wide enough to cover a proceeding under llu Testators' Family~Maintenance Act of 1900. Having consideration of the position of the estate" and the stipulations of the will for its disposition, he wit's of opinion that it, was belter to allow a lumpsum to the widow, allowing her to invest it as an annuity, or in any way sho thought fit. Seeing her great age, and that the statute provided the sum must be for maintenance, the sum could not be large. 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 bo provided, in addition to the widow's allowance under the will, which must continue, was £1000. That sum must bo paid at. once.

Mr. Justice Cooper doubted whether a lump sum, us suggested by the Chief Justice, ought to be paid to plaintiff. Ho thought the provision contemplated under the Act was rather of the nature of an annual payment, and not a lump sum. The very wide discretion vested in the Court probably gave it jurisdiction lo make the order proposed by the Chief Justice, and he was not prepared to dissent from His Honor, but \\: concurred with hesitation.