AN ADOPTED CHILD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20422, 26 November 1929, Page 9

AN ADOPTED CHILD.

SEARCH FOR LEGAL PROOF*

INTERPRETATION OF A WILL.

BENEFICIARY'S DIFFICULTIES,

The difficulties: of William John Cart King in establishing his legal adoption over 50 years ago by John Carr King and his wife, Until King, were again ventilated in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Smith. It was stated that estate to the value of about £SOO depended upon proof of this adoption. The plaintiff was the New Zealand Insurance Company (Mr. Wilkin), who sought the Court's interpretation of the will of John Carr King. Mr. Sinclair appeared for the adopted son, William John Carr King, and Mr. Johnstons for the Public Trustee as trustee for other beneficiaries under the will.

Mr. Wilkin said William John Carr King had been adopted by the testator and his wife in 1877. There was no Adoption of Children Act until 1881.' The boy lived with his adopted parents .-it, Avondale and worked for them in their nursery. In an affidavit be swore that there had been two documents of adoption, one in the possession of his mother and one a Court document. On June 7, 1907, a solicitor, Mr. Griffiths, drew the will of the testator, who died in November, 1911.

Provisions of Will.

The will provided that upon the death of tlio testator's wife the homestead should go to testator's adopted soil, and provision was also made for other relatives. The widow, Ruth King, died last year, leaving the whole of her estate to tier adopted son. The trustees sought guidance as to the ultimate destination of the residuary estate other than the homestead. The will did not decide what should be done with the residuo in the * . event of the adopted son surviving the widow as had actually happened. lie thought there could be no question as to the merits of the son's claim, but thb onus was on him to prove -that he was legally entitled. The value of the estate was not more than between £2OOO and £3OOO.

Counsel said the son could not x>roduce the proof of his adoption, as his papers had been destroyed in a fire last year. All possible sources had been searched for proof without avail. Unfortunately the Auckland Court records from 1881 to 1890 were so incomplete as to be quite in-

conclusive. Mr. Johnstone: That is not so. - Mr. Wilkin: I refer to the affidavit of Mr. Malfroy.

Mr. Johnstone: He has since said he has .traced those papers. You had better have Mr. Malfroy here. Mr. Wilkin said he knew nothing •of anything that had transpired since the search was made. He indicated consider- j able evidence thai, went to show that the son had been legally adopted. ' Residue Unprovided For.

Mr. Sinclair said there was intestacy of the estate as regarded the residue, and if the son was legally adopted , then the residue would go to him. Mr. Johnstone said he agreed there wag intestacy under the will. question of adoption was one that could not be conveniently tried in that Court. The son had not established his legal adoption as it was obligatory upon him to do. The plaintiff, William John Carr King, was wholly mistaken as to what had taken place.

His Honor said it was quite clear thai intestacy had arisen as to the residue of the property other than the homestead. With regard to the adoption, it seemed impossible to come to a certain conclusion upon the affidavits as they stood. He was not satisfied that sufficient search had yet been made, and it was possible that more lighfc might be thrown on the / position. If no further evidence was discovered he was of opinion that legal adoption had not been proved.