ADOPTED SON’S CLAIM

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 829, 25 November 1929, Page 11

ADOPTED SON’S CLAIM

DIFFICULTY IN PROVING ADOPTION CONTINGENCY OVERLOOKED Unusual difficulties confront William John Carr King in furnishing proof that he is the legally adopted .-)ii of the late John Carr Kite-. that he may benefit in the deceased's originating summons heard by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court today, in which the New Zealand Insurance Company, Limited, as trustees of the estate, sought proof of the legal adoption of William John Carr King. The claimant was informally adopted by the late Mr. and Mrs. Carr King as a baby in 1577, four years before the Adoption of Children Act become operative, ancl which made provision for legalising adopt ions. On behalf of the trustees, Mr. Wilkin said that the claimant contended that he was legally adopted in 1577. which, of course, was an error, and also swore that he had documentary proofs of this, one of which had been in charge of Airs. Carr King, and the other he held himself. Under the will, testator left his widow a lifo interest in his property, and although provision was made for the division of the residue of the estate in event of the adopted son predeceasing the widow, no arrangement was made by the testator to meet the contingency of his wife dying before the son—a position which had actually arisen. The trustees, therefore, contended that, in these circumstances, the late Mr. Carr King had died intestate so Tar as the residue of his estate was concerned. Mr. Sinclair, for the claimant, said proof of legal adoption could not be found in the records. It was believed that the records for 18S1 to 1890 had been lost in the Magistrate’s Court, but these had since been discovered, but had not yet been searched. His Honour held that sufficient search had not been made to prove a legal adoption, and that further information might be revealed by other investigations. Failing this, however, he could not decide that legal adoption was proved. He also ruled that there was intestatcy in regard to the residue of the estate.