A DISPUTED WILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3615, 26 June 1923, Page 32

A DISPUTED WILL.

DAUGHTER’S CLAIM DISALLOWED. CHRISTCHURCH, June 18. Whether or not a daughter adequately maintained was entitled to benefit by her father’s will, from which she had been excluded, was a question which Mr Justice Adams had to answer in a case in which the plaintiff was Amy Welsh (wife of Mr T. J. Welsh, farmer, of Halswell), and the defendants were George Mulcock, of Lincoln road, and Francis Redmond, of Cashmere, trustees of the will of Samuel Sparks, deceased. The defendants, by order of the court, were also representing beneficiaries under tho will apart from plaintiff. In the course of his judgment his Honor said: “This is an application under section 33 ‘The Family Protection Act., 1908,’ by plaintiff for an order making such provision as the court thinks fit out of the estate of her deceased father. Sparks died on August 23, 1921, leaving seven daughters and five sons surviving liim, and the value of the estate was upwards of £20,000. In his will he left his furniture and household effects to all his ohildren in equal shares, and the remainder to lx: divided between five- daughters and five sons. Tho applicant had received the sum of £lO 10s 6d as her share of the furniture and household effects. The

live daughters benefiting are all married and in comfortable circumstances, and the other daughter is a member of the Community of the Good Shepherd. The applicant was t.he second daughter, and remained with her father, keeping house for him and assisting on tho farm until August-, 1920, when she married against tho wishes of her father.” His Honor said it appeared that the testator revoked an earlier will by which ho had given the applicant an equal share with his other children, and had disregarded her claims upon his bounty for no other reason than that- when she had attained the age of 30 years she married contrary to his wish. However unjust this might have teen, he could not aooede to the suggestion that an order should be made upon that ground. He had only to consider whether the maintenance and support of the applicant were adequately provided for. lie did not see his way to make an order now, but he made an order that the residuary estate of the testator to the extent of £IOOO be set aside to meet any payments that plaintiff might be able to show in future were necessary.