DISPOSING OF DEAD MEN'S MONEY WELLINGTON, August 24.

Otago Witness, Issue 2685, 30 August 1905, Page 80

DISPOSING OF DEAD MEN'S MONEY WELLINGTON, August 24.

tjuagme-n& was given oy wo i~miei ous woo and Mr Justice Cooper to-day in the case of Plimmer against Plimm-er, a suit by the widow of the lato John Plinuner for an increased allowance from deceased's -estate, from which she had drawn £150 per annum under deed of mutual separation exee.uiedl 30 years ago. The Chief Justice found thafc what was an adequate- provision for a young woman 30 years ago was not adequate for a woman grown old in days when tho cost of living had largely increased, and when she required extra attendance and nursing". It had been said thai the- deed of separation stood in the way of the court acting under the Testators' Family Maintenance Act, but his Honor found that tho words " during such separation,*' which, occur and reouv throughout thei separation deed, made tha provision terminate with John Plimmer's death. His Honor was of opinion that thewords of the covenant weie not wide enough to cover a proceeding under the Testators Family Maintenance Act of 1900, having consideration of the position of the estate a-nd the stipulations of th& will -for its disposition. He was o£ opinion that it waa bettor to allow a lump sum to the widow, allowing her to invest it as an annuity, or in any way she thought fit. Seeing: her great age, and that the statute provided the* sum must be for maintenance, the sum could net be large. The court oould not award a-ny sum to make up to her for her scanty maintenance in tho past. The very Smallest sum that should be provided, in addition to the widow's allowance under the will, which must continue, was £1000. That sum must be paid at once. Mr Justice Cooper doubted -whether a! lump sxim, as suggested by the Chief Justice, ought to be paid to plaintiff. H& thought! the provision contemplated under the act; was rather of the nature of an annual payment, and not of a lump sum. The very wide discretion vested in the court probably gave it iurisdiction to make the order proposed by tlio Chief Justice, ancl ho was not prepared to dissent from hia Honor, but he concurred with hesitation. The Chief Justice to-day made an order for the payment of £1000 to George Munt, who had been omitted from the will of hiaj father, the late Thomas Munt.