DAUGHTER’S MARRIAGE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11648, 12 October 1923, Page 3

DAUGHTER’S MARRIAGE

OPPOSED BY FATHER. The Court of Appeal reserved its decision yesterday in the' Christchurch case under the Family Protection Act, 1908, wherein Mrs Amy Welsh was the appellant, and the respondents were George MuUeoek and Francis Redmond, the executors in the estate of Samuel Sparks, her late father. Mr Justice Hosking presided, . and the other members of the court were Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Salmond, and Mr Justice Reed. Mr O. T. J. Alpers appeared for the appellant, while the respondents wore represented by Mr W. J. Sim. It was contended by the appellant that she had been left without due provision under the terms of her father’s will, and she prayed for increased maintenance. The case far the respondents was outlined by Mr Sim, who said that the appellant had considerable property, and was not entitled to any further benefit. She was in exactly as good an economic position, he declared, as her brothers and sisters. He commented on the fact that there had been no disclosure of her husband’s finances: what was his income ? He also alluded to Mrs Welsh’s claim that she had to work on her father’s farm, and had assisted him in accumulating his wealth. The estate had approximated some £21,000. It was stated that the testator had employed farm hands on the place, and the appellant’s assertion was refuted. The question of religious differences had undoubtedly entered into the matter. as the two daughters who had embraced the Roman Catholic faith (one of whom waa the appellant), had been disinherited. But were not the wishes of the testator to be regarded? If the court was to give the appellant an increased interest in her father’s estate, and’she should die, the mbney would in the ordinary course go to her husband—this had been directly opposed by the testator. Regarding her state of health, counsel held that the doctor’s examination had been made when she was in a weak state of health. There v/as no reason, he submitted, why she should not improve in health later on. He also contended that both the appellant and her husband were ’ in good financial circumstances, and would be adequately provided for in their old age. Mr Hosking said the court would take time to consider the matter.