DISPUTE OVER WILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17755, 14 April 1921, Page 6

DISPUTE OVER WILL.

AN OLD MAN'S ESTATE.

SECOND WIFE SEEKS ALLOWANCE.

Unusual circumstances were connected with an application for variation of a will heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Adams. The plaintiff was Caroline Emily Jennings, a widow (Mr. Dickson), and the defendant Samuel James Jennings, bushfeller (Mr. Gould), executor of the will of the late George Jennings, farmer, Auckland.

Mr. Dickson said the application was made under the Family Protection Act. The plaintiff was the widow of George Jennings, whose will made no provision for her, and it was asked that provision should be made out of the estate for her. The marriage took place in ISI6, when Mr. Jennings, who was«a widower, was 67 years old, and the plaintiff, a widow, was 60. i After they had lived together for three years the plaintiff proceeded against her husband on the ground of failure to maintain, and an order was made for separation with payment qf £1 7s 6d a week. The testator died last year, and his will, made after the separation, directed that his estate was to be divided" equally among cestain children bv his first marriage. Counsel said the plaintiff had no means of livelihood, and he contended that at least £2 a week should be allowed out of the estate for her. Mr. Gould said the persons to whom the estate had been given had a very strong claim on the testator, and the plaintiff had as weak a claim, shorts of conduct unbefitting a wife, as could be shown. The children by the first marriage worked on the testator's farm, which was sold for £3650. The testator had to. give up farming owing to failing healthV and counsel submitted that in sueh circumstances the property belonged in general equity t 0 these children. He contended that the testator's object in contracting his second marriage was that he wanted a companion and nurse for his old age. How far did the results fulfil his expectations? After only three vears the parties were at litigation, and a separation order was made. On behalf of his client counsel offered pavment of £78 a, year. His Honor said the offer- made by the defendant was not unreasonable, but it -should be safeguarded. He made an order for payment of £78 a year out of the estate, with power to resort to the capital in any year in which the income was insufficient to meet the payments. Liberty was reserved to either party to aiiply to the Court for variation of the order. Costs were allowed out of the estate.