RIGHTS OF FAMILY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16373, 22 June 1927, Page 12

RIGHTS OF FAMILY

COURT MAKES ORDER. OAPTAIN COLLINS' WILL. If a man chooses to leave the bulk of his estate to a lodge, making inadequate provision for Ms wife and children the Supreme Court may step in, as fattier, and adjust matters. The late Captain Collins' will was notable for two things, firstly, that he desired his body to be cremated and the ashes cast to the winds at some foam-lashed part of New Zealand, and, secondly, that he left the major portion of his large estate to the Masonic his widow a residence and furniture and £156 annually, the testator said that- he had not enjoyed the true love of his wife ~. An application was heard in Wellington before the Chief Justice, .Sir Charles Skerrett, for an order directing adequate provision for his wife, and a similar application was made by two young sins who have been well-educated and are working in mercantile offices at a low salary. His Honor said that the case is a singular one. The testator was under no moral or legal obligation to leave his property to this or any similar institution, 'but on the contrary was under a moral and legal obligation to make adequate provision for the maintenance of his wife and sons. ."In the present case 1 must not attempt to recast the will of the testator or revoke or limit the provision given to the Masonic Lodge except to the extent to which it is necessary in order to provide adequate maintenance for the widow and children," said His Honor. "I am also of opinion that the annual allowance made to each of the sons, £24,. until he attains the age of 21 years, is inadequate and that testator has not performed his moral duty toward I hem." His Honor was satisfied, that the explanation vouchsafed in the will for withholding the greater benefit from, the widow was without foundation in fact, 'Dealing with the sons, his Honor said that the testator apparently suggests that he has not received in his lifetime the love and trust he considered himself entitled to, and that it is better for the children themselves that they should' know what hardship is, and that they will become better citizens if they are made to work for themselves and are not spoon-fed. '"I do not think that the court ought to regard this explanation as sufficient to justify the testator, as a father, in not "making adequate provision for his sons," continued bis Honor. "The explanation appears far-fetched and extravagant. It appears to justify the punishment of the children for no fault 6f theii- own."

, The /court ordered that the widow, who is more or less indisposed, should receive in addition to the annuity stipulated in the will, £l4O per annum. In regard to the sons the court ordered in addition to the annual payment to them, that a lump sum of £ISOO be. paid each son out of the residue.