WIDOW'S CLAIM FAILS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20536, 10 April 1930, Page 13

WIDOW'S CLAIM FAILS.

NO SHAKE IN ESTATE,

HUSBAND'S WILL" JO STANDS

REASON FOR SUICIDE,'^

COMMENTS BY • THE JUDGE#

[BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.! HAMILTON, Wednesday.'

A claim under the Family Protection Act, 1908, for maintenance, by the estate! of her deceased husband wis made before Mr. Justice Smith in the Hamiltoa Supreme Court to-day by Beatrice Mary; Jane Slater. The defendant was the Public Trustee, executor iirtfa'e estate of plaintiff's husband, Arthur Samuel Slater, farmer, formerly of Te Popo, Taranakk Plaintiff was represented by- Mr. W. J« King, and Mr. F. A. de Ja Maro ap< pcared for defendant. Mr. King said that the plaintiff's mar* riage with Slater took place in February j 1909. In June, 1929, the husband com« mitted suicide, making no provision irt his will for plaintiff, who vras left with' eight children. While she was responsible for (he children plaintiff could not make her own living. At present she whs physically unable to do hard work.

Helped Husband for ,20 Years.

During the 20 years in which plaintiff and her husband had lived together she had assisted him in his farm work and paid her personal earnings into his account. In November, 1926, a serious break' occurred, and plaintiff left her husband to undergo an operation. She did not return, and though her husband asked hell to come back she was still living away; from him in February, 1928. She then considered that she had a right to stay, away from the farm, as she had not fully) recovered her health after the operation* When she refused to return the hus< band disclaimed the responsibility of main-t taining hor, continued Mr. King. In April,, 1929, plaintiff's husband discovered thati she was living at a hotel at Frankton. with another man. There was, however,, no serious suggestion that misconduct had existed.

His Honor maintained that this statement was contrary to the. facts set out in the affidavits.

Mr. King said that although plaintiff admitted misconduct,, she would, if necessary, contest some minor details connected with the admission.

After his discovery of plaintiff's rela« tions with another man, continued Mr« King, the husband returned to his farm and made a will, in which his wife's interests were not considered »t all. About a month later, however, there was an attempt at reconciliation and the husband made negotiations for a farm, property at Morrinsville upon which he and his wife were to live. This, said Mr* King, indicated that the deceased did not take a very serious view of the situation. ' .'•

Judge And Counsel. His Honor: If the Court made an allow* ance to this woman it would be a direct invitation for women to go off with their paramours and later mako an application for maintenance from the estate of a busband who had committed suicide on their account. You. ask me., Mr. King, to infer that the husband completely condoned his wife's conduct :! v

Mr. King: Between the time when the will was made and his death the husband | seemed to have definitely experienced a change of mind in his wife's favour. I base my case on this circumstance, and on the fact that plaintiff is looking after; the eight children. His Honor remarked that the children were'supported by the Public Trustee and could be no charge upoa plaintiff. Sha had better apply to her paramour for assistance. He thought her case was hopeless. For defendant Mr. de la Maro said tha wife's offence had been a continuous one and existed right up to the time of her husband's death. On the day of. his funeral she had been in the house of the other man. If an application of this nature was granted it would cause husbands all over the country to turn in their graves in the fear that their wills could be altered under similar circumstances.

Question For Decision. Hiu Honor said the husband had died and left his widow in a position which sha considered justification, for ant appeal to the Court. In this case, however, no order could be madet in hur favour. The question to bo decided was whether the husband had made a breach of his moral duty. What possible breach could ha have committed! • _ The "wife had lived with her husband for 210 years and then went away with another man. She had lived in a house with him and preferred liim to her husband. Mother lovo was; obviously nob' sufficient to make heir return to her eight children.

It was very difficult to understand tha motives which moved human beings. However, some strong motive had moved plaintiff to stay away from her husband and children. As far as the Court was concerned conduct of that kind was a clear bar to plaintiff's obtaining any interest in her husband's will. It was .quite clear that there was no condonation of plaintiff's conduct by her husband. He had bought a farm upon which the two were to reside, but plaintiff had written a letter to her daughter stating that it would ba difficult for her to leave her paramour.The husband had then committed suicide* "I have no hesitation in declaring,'! said His Honor, "that th«. husband committed no breach of his moral duty in leaving the will as he did." The appliestion was refused.