A WIDOW’S CLAIM.

Otago Witness, Issue 3806, 22 February 1927, Page 7

A WIDOW’S CLAIM.

INTERESTING QUESTION ARISES. CHRISTCHURCH, February 15. ' The application of a woman, who had married again, -for relief under the Family Protection Act, 1908, from the estate of her first husband, which it was stated had been valued for death duty at ov-r £13.000. was heard in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Adams. Mrs Lily Elizabeth Newman asked for relief from the estate of her first husband, Joao Gracia, farmer, of Waiwerikeri, Akaroa County, who died on November 29, 1915. She claimed that he died without making adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support. Fifteen months after her first husband’s death she married Peter Newman, a labourer. The defendants were John Robert Newton and Arthur Meredith Moore, farmers, of Akaroa, executors and trustees under the will. Mrs Newman set out in her affidavit that while she remained a widow she received from her late husband’s estate the sum of £25 in pocket money, and tho estate kept her in clothing. She kept house for and looked after the children. After she married again she kept three of the children by the first marriage, receiving an allowance for their maintenance. Her present husband could do only casual work. She owned a fourroomed cottage valued at £250, in which she lived.’ That, with the furniture, was all she possessed. She had been informed that her late husband’s estate had boon valued for death duty at £13,558. Her eldest daughter had obtained an order under the Act for £5OO out of the estate, in addition to a legacy of £5OO uijdcr the will. Since her second marriage she had had nothing from the estate, and under the will she would receive nothing. There were seven children by her first marriage, and all received legacies under the will. There were no children Jiy the second marriage. Mr \V. J. Sim. counsel for plaintiff, said that under the will Mrs Newman was given an income at the discretion of the trustees as long as she remained a widow. She was well provided for at the time. His Honor observed that the argument raised a very interesting question which ought to be taken before the full court. There was the question of the alienating of rights, and it was obvious that if judgment in the Supreme Court were in one direction, and if it should be erroneous irreparable injury might be done to plaintiff, because she would not be in a position to incur the expense of an appeal. Accordingly the case was referred for hearing to the full court at Wellington.