A FARMER’S WILL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16739, 22 May 1922, Page 7

A FARMER’S WILL.

DAUGHTERS APPLY FOR PROVISION. FAMILY PROTECTION ACT. The will of the late Thomas 801 l Howson, farmer. Sodgomore. near Lake Ellesmere, was the subject of a ease in the Supreme CVrnrt to-day. Ho died on May 4. 1920, leaving an estate valued at £38,836. The sura of £3715 wont rn duties, leaving about £35,1-1 to he distributed amongst his children. He left £6OO as legacies to each of them, hut directed that moneys given in the way of gift, advance or wages during bis life should be deducted. The sum of £.‘looo, in addition, was left to one son, Thomas Bell Howson, for his life, and after his death to his children, and the residue of the estate was left to the two other sons, Benjamin Roper Howson and Arnold George Howson, in equal shares.

The seven daughters now. as plaintiffs, claimed that the will did not make adequate provision for their proper maintenance and support. They asked that an order should be made under the Family Protection Act providing for provision for them out of the estate. They are Barbara Ann liondy, Sydney, widow ; Margaret Flora Christian Howson. Sydney, spinster; Elizabeth Harriot Howson. Christchurch, maternity nurse; Mary Jane Howson, Westport, housekeeper ; Lucy May Howson, St Mary’s Home, Otahuhu, Auckland. maternity nurse: Christina Maud W illiamson, wife of Samuel Williamson. Hinds, Canterbury, farmer; and Laura Edith Howson, Whatutu, near Gisborne, school teacher. The defendants in the case are Benjamin Roper Howson, Hedge mere, and Arnold George Howson, Sedgeraere, sons of the deceased, and William Scott, South bridge, trustee for the children of Thomas Bell Howson the younger.

The case was heard by his Honor Mr Justice Adams in banco. Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for plaintiffs ajid Mr A. C. Fryer for defendants. When a man has an estate worth £38,000, and has a family of daughters, it is his moral duty, in his will, to provide for them for the whole of their lives.’’ Mr Hunter said in opening the case for the plaintiffs. “He should leave them sufficient to keen them from destitution. The plaintiffs worked on the farm when they were young. If it had not been for them their father would have been compelled to employ more labour, and would not have been able to amass so much wealth. They have had hard liveß. and they realise now that they will become gradually poorer. Their father left a first-class farm, all equipped and ready, to two of his sons, strong. healthv young farmers, who came into £12,500 each. It s a crying shame that the daughters should have nothing hut a miserable £6OO each. The explanation. I think, is that the deceased began *n n small way. and never realised that he was becoming wealthy, and £SOO or £fioo would seem a large sum to him then. It’s little enough now. not more than £3OO was fifteen years ago. ' In reply to a remark by Mr Hunter that the estate was one of the large-t that had come within an application of that nature under the Family Protection Act. his Honor said that there was a. case in which a man devised £3OO a year to his widow for her maintenance, and left an estate worth £250.000. The testator was a farmer. There was nothing vindictive in his action, but he did not realise that £3OO a year would not go far. Elizabeth Harriet Howson said that she left the farm when she was about twenty-two years of ago, as she wished to do better. Her father told her that there would be at least £IOOO for each of those who had helped him on the farm. She told him that she wished to establish a maternity home. costing about £IOOO. and he offered her a cheque for £6OO. She did not have an opportunity to see him again before he died, six months later. Mr Fryer, for the defence, said that the deceased began life at Sedgemere as a butcher. lie took up land there, taking over heavy mortgages. By his industry, and with the help of his three sons, he amassed considerable wealth before he died, lie had twelve children

seven daughters, plaintiffs in the present case, and five sons, one of whom had died. One of the sons had accepted £3OOO in settlement of his claim against the estate The two sons who

were defendants wore horn on the farm. All the daughters left the farm, come

of them thirty-three years ago, the last two some nine years before their father died.

His Honor: Tt is not suggested that any of the daughters have nest eggs? Mr Fryer: No. He continued that the deceased in previous wills showed consistently that he wished the daughters to have about £6OO each. His Honor said that it was a question as to what the facts were: there was no suggestion, of undue influence. Mr Fryer said that the estimated residue of the estate, as far as parties m the present case were concerned, was £25,000. He added that the case cf Mrs Hendv was the least deserving, and lhat of Margaret Howson the most deserving On his Honor’s suggestion, Mr Fryer consulted the defendants as to whether they would make an offer to the daughters. He said that he was authorised to do that, but Mr Hunter, alter consulting two of the daughters in Court, said that they preferred to have tho question settled by his Honor, especially as some of tho daughters were not in New Zealand. His Honor said that he agreed with Mr Fryer that no further provision should 'be made in Mrs Hendy’s case. He made tho following order: —Margaret Howson to be paid £IOO a .year, Mary Jane Howson and Laura Howson u sum of £IOO each, and Elizabeth Howbon and Lucy Howson a sum of £6OO each, all in addition to their legacies cf £6OO. No order was made in respect to Mrs Hendv. Consideration of the case of Mrs Williamson, who has rix children, was held over to enable Mr Hunter to file affidavits in regard to her position. His Honor ordered that costs should be paid out of the estate.