FAMILY PROTECTION ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3619, 24 July 1923, Page 59

FAMILY PROTECTION ACT.

A WIDOWS CLAIM. WELLINGTON, July 13. The Supreme Court (full Bench) heard argument to-day in the cage of Mary Parish v. Albert Henry Parish and others, a claim by a widow under the Family Protection Act for a further allowance from her deceased husband’s estate than was given to her by her husband’s will. Plaintiff married .Jier husband, who was a widower with a grown-up family, when he was 72 years of age. Prior to her marriage she entered into an agreement by deed with her husband whereby she was net to receive more than £4OO from her husband’s estate on his death. The husband, who died when lie was 76 years of age. left plaintiff £IOOO. and divided the rest of the estate, which was valued at over £16.000, equally among the children of the first marriage. Plaintiff applied to the court for further maintenance from the estate. Mr Rowe (for plaintiff) said that an important point involved was whether a person could contract out o£ the benefits of the Family Protection Act. He contended that it was not possible for a person to do so. The matter had been already judicially decided. He. suggested that the widow should be given an allowance of at least £250 a year. Mr Sargent (for defendant) said that the plaintiff was hound by the terms of the ante-nuptial contract, and was not. really entitled to anything more than £4OO from her husband's estate. The Family Protection Act had no provision saying that a wife could not contract herself out of the provisions of the Act. Plaintiff was bound by her agreement not to claim more than £4OO. Mr Cornish (who appeared for certain of the defendants) said that, looking at all the cumstances of the ease, the provision of £IOOO made by the. will for plaintiff was as much as she was entitled to. Decision was reserved. The Court of Appeal has adjourned fill July 19.