AIRMAN’S WIDOW

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19136, 3 October 1936, Page 8

AIRMAN’S WIDOW

DEFENDANT IN ACTION

CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE

SYDNEY, Sept. 23.

A ponding action, in which Lady Alary Kingston! Smith, widow of the late Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, is the defendant-, came before Air. Acting Justice Owen, in Chambers yesterday. The action is one by Beaumont I udor Jbeil against Lady Mary Kingsford Smith (as executrix of the will of the late Sir Charles Kingsford Smith) to ecover £755, alleged to he due to Shed :n respect of a contract between him uni the late Sir Charles Kingsford ■unith by whom lie had been employed, rom May, 1935, until February, 1935. There were two summonses before the Court, the plaintiff being the applicant in the first, and the defendant being the applicant, in the second. The first summons was to strike out the defendant’s pleas to the action, on the ground that no proper affidavit of verification had been filed. The second summons, on behalf of the defendant, was 'or leave to tile further pleas out of inie, with such verification as his Honour might think tit-. It appeared that the plaintiff entered 'nto the service of Sii) Charles Kingsford Smith’s organisation under conditions which provided, among others, hat, in the event of the death ot Kingsford Smith during tho period of 'miploynient, his personal representative •.voirid pay to Sheil the sum of £SOO. It was also a part of the agreement that an insurance policy for £SOO should he "ffeeted on Kingsford 1 Smith’s, life to he mid to plaintiff in the event of Kingsford Smith's death during the period of nlaintiff’s employment. Another term of the agreement provided for the payment of £IOO upon the termination of plaintiff's services. Sir Charles Kingsford Smith left England on November 6. 1935, on aflight to Australia, and the last report, of him was at Allahabad on November 7. 197,5.

The defendant's first plea sei up a denial Hint the late Sir 'Charles Kingsford Smith died during the term of the plaintiff's employment by the deceased. It, was contended for the plaintiff that this involved setting up that Sir Charles Kingsford Smith died: after February 15, 1936, whereas all the information available to the defendant was to the effect that he died l on or about November 7. 1935. and that, therefore, tile defendant should not he allowed to file this plea. His Honour held that, as to the first summons, the defendant’s pleas must be struck out, on the ground! that the affidavit was insufficient. As to the defendant,ls summons. leave was given to file furl her pleas, supported h-v a fresh nffidav it, Jiv the defendant, and also by tho affidavits placed before the Probate Court, in support of the application lor leave to swear to the death of Sir Charles Kingsford Smith.

The costs of both summonses were made costs in the ease.