UNUSUAL WILL CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17754, 13 April 1921, Page 8

UNUSUAL WILL CASE.

DAUGHTERS DISPOSSESSED.

SHARE OF ESTATE DESIRED.

ALLEGATIONS AND DENIALS-

An unusual case was heard at the Supremo Court, before Mr. Justice Adams, yesterday, when two married women asked the Court to grant them a share of their father's deceased estate, valued fit £16,000, under the provisions 'of tho Family Protection Act, 1908, and the will of their father, Arthur John Parkinson, farmer, lato of Opotiki. The applicants woro Clara Alice Maud Ellston and Helen Isabella Butler (Mr. Hall Skclton), and tho defendants, who were called upon to show causo why plaintiffs should not roceivo provision out of the testator's estate, were James Henry Parkinson, executor of the will, Jemima Parkinson, Arthur John Parkinson, at ? resent in Samoa, John Alfred Parkinson, 'nomas Henry Parkinson (Mr. Towle, instructed by Messrs. Potts and Hodgson, Opotiki), and Frederick Charles Parkinson (Mr. Prondergast), all of whom wero beneficiaries, under tho will. Mr. Skclton said the father, before ho died, altered his will, excluding Mrs. Ellston from its provisions, and giving Mrs. Butler only £100. Plaintiffs had lived in Auckland for tho greater part of the last 25 to 30 years, and were m poor circumstances. With their brothers and sisters they wad worked hard on tho farm in their unmarried days, and bad contributed to its present value, which was approximately £16,000. The mother, Jemima Parkinson, aged 73, and two brothers, in affidavits produced, continued counsel, mado allegations against one of the daughters, professedly with tho object 6f showing why tho daughters had been excluded. from the will. Mrs". Parkinson, in hor affidavit, alleged that Mrs. Ellston was excluded because of hor " ex-, travagant, immoral and drinking habits," and because the father did not want any of his money to go to her husband, whoso character ho did not approve. This latter statement, said counsel, was significant', because Mrs, Ellston did not marry the man until a year after the will •was made. Sho had divorced her first husband after 18 year's of married life, and tho second husband, to whom the affidavit referred, had died two months ago. Regarding Mrs. Butler, the mother said that she bad been given only £100 because " enough" had been spent on hor, and sho could not make a success of anything in lifo." Referenco was made to tho affidavits of two brothers, who also made damaging alienations against the plaintiffs. Tho brothers, continued counsel, admitted that they only " believed" the charges they mado. It was only hearsay evidence, and was Unsupported by anyone outside the confines of the family. His Honor: Evidence of third parties is, of course, of little value in a case of this kind.

Counsel read tho affidavits of two uncles of the plaintiffs, denying the truth of the charges of immorality. A denial was also read, signed by John Dillicar, of Auckland, who, counsel said, was well acquainted with plaintiffs and wm financially disinterested. Asked by His Honor what share ft) the estate the plaintiffs wanted, Mr. Skelton mentioned the sum of £1000 each. After the luncheon adjournment, counsel conferred and arrived at certain common proposals, which they will submit to their clients. The case was adjourned.