THE WILL OF A FARMER

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1930, Page 2

THE WILL OF A FARMER

WIDOW'S APPLICATION DISMISSED.

POINT OF “ADEQUATE PROVISION.”

bismissing an. application under the Family - Protection Act, 19Q8, in the estate of the late George William Geary, farnier, Manutahi, the reserved judgment of the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers,-has been delivered, at New Plymouth. Tile application was heard at the last Sitting of the Supreme Court' oil- the motion of Amelia Geary, widow, Wellington, the defendants. being* William George Strange, chemist, Hawera and Manson Barraclough, butcher, Ha■wiei'a, trustees under the will. . ■According to the judgment the testator by liis will gave the plaintiff his motor-car and all his furniture and ar-.i tides of household or personal use and ornament, the sum of £2OO, to. be paid as. soon as convenient after his death, and an Annuity of £250-,. payable clear of all deductions, anil he directed to be set aside a..sum not exceeding £l5OO to be applied iff the purchase of a house. The plaintiff duly received, the legacy of £200,the furniture and other The; furniture she sold for about £45, and the motor-car for' £95. If the provision in regard to a house had been carried into effect she would have a house free of rent and an annuity of £250. She had. preferred, however, not to-have a house purchased or erected for her, and by arrangement with the trustees she was receiving interest on the sum of £l5OO at the rate of £6 per centum per annum. She was • therefore receiving from the estate £340 per annum. She had no. one but herself to. maintain. When the testator died it Was thought that the nfrt value of his estate was slightly under £lO,OOO. It turned out, however, to be worth just over £lO,OOO. The question for the consideration of the court -under section 33 of the Family Protection Act was not whether it thought the testator should have- made more liberal provision for the plaintiff, but whether he had by his will made adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support. “In my opinion,” stated his Honour, “hiving regard to the principles laid down in the many cases which have been decided under the statute, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that adequate provi-sion-has hot been made. The court has no right to interfere with a person’s testamentary disposition unless it appears reasonably clear that he has failed in the obligation which section 33 of the. Act ; imposes upon him, and. in my opinion this is not such a case. This being my view, I have not thought it necessary to consider whether ah extension of time should be granted within which the application could be made to the court. I , have assumed in the plaintiff’s favour that such an order should, be made. The application is dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.” •

Mr. T. P. Anderson represented plaintiff and Mr. A. K. North the defendant trustees and residuary legatees.