MORE BENEFIT SOUGHT

Taranaki Daily News, 27 November 1934, Page 5

MORE BENEFIT SOUGHT

PROVISIONS OF, A WILL REQUEST BY SON AND DAUGHTER. OPPOSITION BY REST OF FAMILY That an estate of £5OOO had not been equally enough divided and that one petitioner who was destitute was entitled under the Family Protection Act to greater benefits than she obtained, under the will were the chief points raised in an action heard before His Honour Mr. Justice Smith at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The case was an originating summons by a son and daughter in the matter of the will and codicil made by.their father, George Miles, Inglewood, who died in February. The making of an order was opposed by nine other sons and daughters, legatees and beneficiaries under the will. His Honour reserved his decision. Gladys May Baker, Opunake (Mr. F. S. Grayling) and Charles Edward Miles, Waitara (Mr. W. Middleton) were petitioners, and joined in the action wera the Public Trustee (Mr. J. H. Sheat), six pecuniary legatees, Ivy Amy Knofflock, George Selim Miles, Alice May Sattler, Mary Aim. Ingram Baker, Nora Emily. Elliot,’ Eva Emma Miles (Mr. N. F. Little) and three residuary beneficiaries, Harold Roy Miles, Hubert Walter Miles, Oswald Cyril Miles (Mr. A. A. Bennett). There was a family of 11 and an estate of about £5OOO, said Mr. Grayling. The will made in September, 1929, made bequests to eight of the family, which bequests were increased by £5O subsequently. The father died this year, his wife having predeceased him. Mrs. Baker’s husband had been on relief work for four years as his occupation as a wheelwright was practically gone. In those four years Mrs. Baker had been unable to live her ordinary life and it had been necessary to depend on charity. There were five children. It was submitted she was left without proper means of support. Mr. Grayling criticised the estimate by the residuary beneficiary of the value of the estate. His Honour pointed out that the will had been alered by a codicil. The depression was temporary, perhaps, and any alteration in the will to be made would be permanent. If Mrs. Baker was destitute provision was surely made by the charitable relief institutions. CASE FOR PROTECTION ACT. Mr. Grayling submitted that this was a case such as the Family Protection Act had been instituted for. It was not necessary to be destitute to claim relief under the Family Protection Act, said Mr. Middleton. C. E. Miles had lost an eye in the war, and consequently was given q, war pension. As eldest son he put in 2j years’ work on the homo farm after coming back from the war and assisted with his pension. He now; looked to a freezing works for employment, which brought in £7O. > Mr. Middleton supported Mr. Grayling’s contention that the residuary beneficiaries were in a better position to make a living, than most farmers because their farms were contiguous. The legatees whom he represented, said. Mr. Little, were concerned in opposing any further . provision being made for petitioners. They were little better off themselves than C. E. Miles and Mrs.Baker. They realised their father was a just man and considered his dispositions could not be altered.

There was an estate of £5OOO, of which £2OOO was given in specific legacies varying from £225 to £350 to eight children, said Mr. Bennett. The remainder of the £3OOO was given to the other three children, from whom any relief would have to come. Mrs. Baker had an able-bodied husband, no debts and had had no assistance from her father since her marriage 16 years ago, and had some money still to come from the estate. The same applied to C. E. Miles, who was able-bodied and had legacy moneys still due. C. E. "Miles might have been a residuary bene-, ficiary had he not left the partnership. The justification for the unequal division of the estate seemed to him the important point,, said His Honour. It had been the work" of the three residuary beneficiaries that had greatly improved the home farm since 1919. When C. E. Miles left the partnership in 1923 he was given £350 for his share.

Nine of the children were satisfied with the will, and then there was the matter of the codicil making extra provision, which showed he was a just father, bearing in mind his responsibilities.

The reason for the division of £3OOO of the estate among the three boys had been given as that they had improved it greatly, replied Mr. Grayling. The improvements to the home farm had been incidental to the improvement of the sons’ farms.

C. E. Miles was in a position in' which he had to keep up payments on a property he was purchasing, and he would prefer a sum certain rather than an annuity, which Mr. Bennett had said th® beneficiaries would prefer if His Honour held an alteration should be made.