CLAIM ON ESTATE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19509, 7 June 1933, Page 8

CLAIM ON ESTATE

SON SEEKS BETTER PROVISION. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, June 6. Better provision out of the estate of William Alfred Liverton, sheepfarmer, deceased, was sought by William Charles Liverton, station hand, of Pakowai, in the Supreme Court to-day. before Mr Justice MacGregor. The testator left an estate valued at over £IOO,OOO. Eight counsel were briefed on behalf of various interests. It was stated for the trustees that they had decided simply to abide by the judgment of the Court. They did not propose taking any active part in either opposing or supporting the claim. Counsel for the plaintiff said the testator died aged 91 years. The residue of the estate at the present time was £48,000, but on the death of the testator’s widow, a further £28,000 would fall into the residue. Plaintiff was 61 years of age. If he followed medical advice he would be thrown back on the income of approximately £l4O he derived from a trust fund under the will. He had annual expenses to meet for the maintenance of his only surviving son, and provided the rate remained as at present, had left a net income of about £IOOO out of the fund. The testator was married three times, and some of the beneficiaries belonged to each of the three families. Counsel submitted that plaintiff should be granted a lmnp sum of £2OOO, and that the annuity should be increased to £3OO. If the Court was of the opinion that he should not be allowed a lump sum. then it was suggested that plaintiff should receive £SOO or £6OO a year. Counsel for the trurtees pointed out that in assessing the income from the estate, or even in assessing the value of the residue, the figures handed into Court must be taken as purely paper figures that were not likely to be realised under present day circumstances. Counsel for some other beneficiaries contended that there had been no breach of the testator’s moral duty to applicant, and no want of appreciation of his claim. It was submitted that claimant had not discharged the onus of showing that he had not received proper provision under the will. Counsel for another beneficiary said the view taken by his client was that the will should be altered only to the extent of repairing any defect in testator’s duty to the applicant. . After hearing further argument, His Honour reserved decision.