ALLOWANCE TO WIDOW

Taranaki Daily News, 28 November 1934, Page 9

ALLOWANCE TO WIDOW

PROVISION UNDER .WILL | APPLICATION FOR AN INCREASE. JUDGE RESERVES HIS JUDGMENT. A variation of the will of the late Robert Cassells Paul, hardware merchant, Auckland, who died in May, was applied for by the widow, Gwendoline Rose Paul, in an originating summons heard by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. After hearing argument from Mr. R. H. Quilliam, representing Mrs. Paul, Mr. T. P. Anderson, representing the executors, Messrs Henry McCoy and A. R. Standish, and Mrs. Pauline Grace Knocker, and Mr. Ronald James Bennett, possible beneficiaries, and Mr. J. C. Nicholson, guardian of Sydney James Maurice Paul, son of the deceased, His Honour reserved judgment. The plaintiff was the widow of Ronald Paul, who died in May, said Mr. Quilliam. Her husband made his will in October, 1932, with a codicil in July, 1933. Sidney James M. Paul was the only son of the marriage and lived with his mother. The will stated that £2CO was to be paid to Mrs. Paul and the residue of an estate estimated to be worth £2OOO was to be invested and the proceeds to be paid to the widow until death or remarriage. After that the son succeeded if he reached the age of 21. ■lf he did not the niece and nephew, Mrs! Knocker and Ronald James Bennett, were beneficiaries. In the estate were two house properties in Auckland which, however, were not bringing in any surplus above charges on the properties. Mrs. Paul had received £125 of her legacy but had no present income, and had unsecured debts totalling £l5O. INCREASE IN LEGACY SOUGHT. Mr. Quilliam suggested that the legacy be increased to £3OO. As it was impossible for Mrs. Paul to live on the income of the estate, which was between £5O and £BO, Mr., Quilliam suggested that Mrs. Paul be granted an annuity of £5 a week with power to resort to capital. There was the interest of the son to be considered, as it was hoped to give him a university education. • Then there was a contingent liability of £7OO in second mortgage on one of the Auckland house properties, which would have to be considered in the payment of moneys to Mrs. PauL Mr. Quilliam outlined proposals for the protection of the estate from liability for the mortgage. It was suggested that Paul had failed to appreciate the drop that would take place in land and property values and that was the only reason for his not having made sufficient provision. Mr. Quilliam asked that if the court made an order power be given to review if circumstances altered. If the son did not attain the age of 21, said Mr. Anderson, the niece and nephew, Pauline Grace Knocker (nee Bennett) and Ronald James Bennett came into the estate, subject to the life interest of the widow. If the son did not die before 21—he was now 16 and his death was an improbability—the niece and nephew lost interest. In any case their parents were in good, circumstances, Miss Pauline Bennett, being now married and living in India, while Bennett was in the Royal Air Force. They would be willing to renounce their claim. POWER FOR TRUSTEES. To any allowance made to Mrs. Paul power should be given, suggested Mr. Nicholson, to the trustees to make the payment to Mrs. Paul direct or to the son. Any extra payment to Mrs. Paul would have to come from the corpus of the estate belonging to the son, and he asked that an order be made for the widow to maintain her son during his minority. Regarding Mr. Quilliam’s proposals, he was strongly opposed to an increase of the legacy to £3OO. On the contrary he considered that the widow should cede her legacy. ’ Why should the boy. have to pay the debts she had incurred? The creditors should not rely on the boy’s money. As it was the proposed annuity would eat up the estate in no time and should be governed by the size of the estate. The allowance should be £3 10s so long as the boy was maintained and thereafter £3 a week. He opposed an order adding the £7OO mortgage to f ■ legacy, as it might easily be paid off by the Khyber Pass property before long. He had no objection to the imposing of restrictions on the spending of money by the widow, said Mr. Quilliam. He thought the widow should have every consideration. It did not seem that it would matter if the boy did not receive anything at all. He "was an able-bodied: youth, capable of earning his own living and during the time the estate lasted he would have the satisfaction of knowing his mother had had a home, and would have the advantage of home life himself. The stipulation that the widow should maintain the son would not operate harshly. Mrs. Paul and her son lived together. The debts owing by Mrs. Paul were: household ones and die had a right to have them paid off. Mr. Quilliam said he thought that if the son were old enough he would be supporting his mother’s requests, not opposing them. A just husband and father would have made provision to pay the widow and son enough to allow them to live reasonably in the hope that when his estate had been used her own properties would increase in value with better times. In saying that he was not overlooking that it would exhaust the estate in a few’ years and for that reason was agreeable that the period of th® order be limited.