PROVISION UNDER A WILL

Taranaki Daily News, 5 July 1930, Page 11

PROVISION UNDER A WILL

DAUGHTER MAKES CLAIM NORMANBY WIDOW’S APPEAL. COURT GRANTS EXTRA BENEFIT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Court of Appeal was engaged today in hearing an appeal in the case of Emily Abigail Free, of Normanby, widow, against John Bingham Richards, and George Ingamells Harper, executors under the will of Walter Goodland, late of Hawera. Apellant is a daughter of Goodland, and brought an originating summons before the Supreme Court at New Plymouth in March last, alleging that under the will of her father she had not been treated equally with her sisters, and claiming adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of herself out of her father’s estate. The matter was heard before Mr. Justice Reid, who, in an oral judgment, held that Mrs. Free had not shown that her father had failed in his duty to her, and dismissed the application. Mr. Free appealed from . this decision. For the appellant was Mr. O’Dea, for the respondent Mr. Quilliam. Mr. O’Dea said the will of deceased was made in his 90th year. He died on Ypril 3, 1929, leaving an estate valued at £6715, and a widow and five daughters surviving him. His widow had since died. According to the will a life estate was left to the wife, and upon her death interest on the sum of £7OO was to be paid to the appellant, the residue to be divided among the four remaining daughters. Mr. O’Dea submitted that deceased had not made adequate provision for the appellant, who was in a bad position financially. The other four daughters were in better financial positions. Mr. Quilliam said the testator had made adequate, provision for this daughter. .She.had a home of her own and was able ; to,,.work-, and had two grown-up daughters.: He submitted that if the court intended to increase the share allowed appellant it should do so by increasing the income payable to her, and should not touch the capital sum. At the conclusion of the hearing the Chief Justice said that in his opinion the appeal should be allowed. Deceased had not made sufficient provision for the maintenance of the appellant, and although he was just as emphatic in his protests against the variation of. men’s wills by the court as anyone else, yet nevertheless he was of opinion that the amount given by the will to the appellant should be increased. His Honour directed that the trustees should set aside a sum which would bring the income to the appellant up to the sum of £lOO per annum, but if the parties could agree upon another arrangement, subject to the court’s approval, that could be substituted. Costs were allowed on the highest scale as from a distance. The other members of the court concurred in this decision.