LIVERTON WILL CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21976, 10 June 1933, Page 13

LIVERTON WILL CASE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ADDITIONAL PROVISION FOR SON. United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 9. In a written decision delivered to-day, Mr Justice MacGregor made an order granting William Charles Liverton, a station hand, aged 61, of Pakowai, an additional allowance of £l5O a year to be paid to him during his life by equal monthly payments to form a charge on the net residue of his father’s estate. This was an application by a son under the Family Protection Act. His Honor t said he had taken into Recount the long ' and almost gratuitous assistance given by the plaintiff to his father many years ago in building up the family estate, as well as the probable loss by the plaintiff in the near future of his present yearly wages and also an annuity gratuitously given him out of his brother’s estate. This was a case in which better provision out of the estate of William Alfred Liverton, sheep farmer, was sought by his son, William Charles Liverton. The testator left an estate valued at over £IOO,OOO. The trustees did not take any active part in either opposing or suppqrting the claim. Counsel for the plaintiff said the testator died at the age of 91. The residue of the estate at the present time was £48,000, but on the death of the testator’s widow a further £28,000 would fall into the residue. The plaintiff was 61 years of age. If he followed medical advice, he would be thrown back on an income of approximately £l4O that he derived from a trust fund under the will. He had annual expenses to meet for the? maintenance of his only surviving son, and, provided the rate remained as at , present, he would have left a net income of about £IOO out_ of the. fund. The testator was married three times, and some of the beneficiaries belonged to each of the three families. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff should be granted a lump sum of £2OOO, and that the annuity should be increased to £3OO. If in ,1116 court’s opinion he could not be allowed a lump sum, then it was suggested that. - the plaintiff receive £SOO or £6OO a year.