NOT ENOUGH ?

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 14, 1 October 1929, Page 5

NOT ENOUGH ?

. / IA ANNUITIES OF £IOOO OPPOSITION TO INCREASE

INTERESTING AUCKLAND CASE i - AUCKLAND, Sept. 30. , A claim for increase of annuity under the will of her husband, the late Alexander Bell, was made by Jessie Alberta Bell in the Supreme Court. It was stated that the gross value of the estate was £344,500. Death duties totalled £BO,OOO, and testamentary expanses £IOOOO. Deceased was well-known having amassed his fortune chiefly as owner of farm property in various parts of the North Island. He died in July, 1928. Plaintiff was his second wife and he married testator in 1916. In his will, testator loft plaintiff £750 a year, but by codicil this was increased to £IOOO with the proviso that it should be reduced to £SOO in the event of his wife's remarriage. The trustees were directed to set apart £60,000 for the payment of the annuities and as each of the annuitant ’s interest expired, the portion of the fund producing the annuity was to fall into, the i residue of the estate, which totalled £150,444. The whole of this residue, together with the accumulated income, was to go to the grandchildren livirig ten years after testator’s death. Thirteen grandchildren were now alive. Plaintiff was living in a ten-roomed house in Upland Road, Romuera, left t 0 her by testator. The house was sur rounded' by four and three-quarter acres of land, the property being valued, at £0,500. In the affidavit plaintiff, said (hat the amount allowed her under the will was not sufficient to : pibvi(lo for her in the way her husband did during his life time. Cross-examined, plaintiff said her canital assets were valued at over £9poo, This sum included gas shares £1075, bank shares £132, house and land £.*5,500. furniture £6OO, shop premises £11(16 and a motor car valued at about £640. < .

Questioned, plaintiff said she was 40 .and. her husband died at the age of 84. The rn arri age certificate was produced showing plaintiff's age in 1916 as 32, but plaintiff said it should really bo 28. =i id i»'Uf • Application for increase of annuity was opposed by Mr Johnson on behalf of the 13 grandchildren of the testator, and by Mr Richmond, who appeared for Mrs Janet Taylor and Mrs Jane Laird, of the testatof. They submitted that the testator had discharged all moral obligations to his wife in leaving, her his house property and £IOOO a year. If the Court made any extension of the will or grant to plaintiff it would create a breach of the understood principles of the Testators’ Family Maintenance Act. It would be a dangerous step beyond the authorities laid down in Australia and New Zealand. The case was adjourned until tomorrow;- 1