HUNTER MIL CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21993, 30 June 1933, Page 4

HUNTER MIL CASE

FURTHER CLAIM BY WIDOW THE APPEAL DISMISSED (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 29. When the Court of Appeal sat for the resumption of the Hunter appeal the courthouse was packed with spectators, a large proportion of whom comprised smartly dressed women, who displayed great interest in the proceedings. Continuing her address, Lady Hunter said she had been living most humbly during the past 12 months. The allowance she received in the main had been used to stave off creditors. She' had maintained her family by the sale of small articles and personal effects since her husband’s death. She repeated that she was faced with bankruptcy unless an increased allowance was given her. She had been unable to find any case in the law reports as tragic as her own. Mr Perry, for the infant daughter, said he supported the appeal of Lady Hunter, as the interests of t£e child in this-mat-ter were the same as those of the mother. He submitted that the order made by Mr Justice Blair was not a final order, and that an increase could be given to Lady Hunter. Sir Michael Myers (Chief Justice)said he had grave doubts that the order should ever have been made. The basis of the court’s jurisdiction was that a testator should have failed in his moral duty. It seemed to him that it could not be said that Sir George Hunter bad. so failed. So far as the child was concerned, he thought the proper procedure for her was to apply for an order under the Family Protection Act, but, as far as the widow was concerned,: the proper application should have been for the trustee to apply for an order for payment out of capital. Mr Cornish, counsel for the trustee, said his client was quite agreeable to such an application being made; indeed, that suggestion had been placed by him before Mr Justice Blair. The court called on Mr Cornish briefly to address it on the question of the widow’s right of appeal. After he had done so and Lady Hunter had addressed another appeal for assistance, the court , delivered judgment dismissing the appeal. The Chief Justice said the question whether an order for £4OO per annum should have been made at all did not arise for consideration. Mr Justice Blair, when making that order, had expressed doubt whether the - provisions of the statute entitled him to do so. He (the Chief Justice) shared that doubt, and was inclined to think that no order should have been made. He found it difficult to see how it could be said that the testator had failed in his moral duty. The depression was something which he could not foresee.’ In the view that he took the appellant was not entitled to make the application in November. So far as she was concerned, the June order was a final one. He thought he ought to say that in his view the proceedings had been misconceived. If it was thought that £4OO was insufficient for the widow and child, it was competent for an application to be made for payment out of the capital of sufficient maintenance. That application probably should be made by the executor. He wished to express no opinion as to what ought to have been done; only what might be done. * Mr Justice Herdman agreed that the order in the court below was a final one, and the appellant was not entitled to succeed. Mr Justice Kennedy also agreed upon this point, and further suggested that appellant hadi misconceived her remedy. The executor was awarded costs out of the estate. In June, 1932, Edith May Hunter, widow of Sir George Hunter, in view of the fact that she 'had received nothing from the estate, which had proved nonincome earning during the depression, was granted payment of £4OO per annum from the capital of the estate, with liberty reserved for variation or discharge of the order at any time. In November, her application for an increase of the order was refused, hence the present appeal.