DAUGHTER’S CLAIM ON FATHER’S ESTATE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17192, 8 November 1923, Page 7

DAUGHTER’S CLAIM ON FATHER’S ESTATE.

— w AN APPEAL ALLOWED. Pkr Prrss Association. WELLINGTON, November 8. The Court of Appeal gave judgment this morning in tho case of elsh v. Mulcock and Redmond, an appeal against the judgment ol Mr Justice Adams. This was a claim under the Family Protection Act by a daughter for further maintenance from her father s estate, which was certified for the purposes of death duties as being of the the value of £20.928. The daughter received only about £lO under her father’s will. Mr Justice Adams, in the Supreme Court, had refused to make any order j for present maintenance. but siad » charged the residuary estate with tho sum of £IOOO to meet future claims by the appellant. Mr Justice Salmond said that in his opinion the appeal should be allowed. Th*' Court, should, he said, give such maintenance and support as it was his moral duty of the testator to make. In the present case the testator had unjustly and without cause disinherited the appellant. Tn his opinion, the appellant should receive a lump sum of £IOOO from her father’s estate, and the order made by Mr Justice Adams should be varied accordingly. The appellant should be allowed tests on the highest scale as on a case from a distance. Tho other members of the Court concurred in this judgment. Tho appellant. Amy Welsh, applied under the provisions of the Family Protection Act for further maintenance from the estate of her deceased father. Under her father’s will appellant was left about ten pounds. The bulk of the estate, valued at ovor £20,000, was left among ten other brothers and sisters. Appellant claimed that she had not been left adequate maintenance. Mr Justice Adams, in the Supreme Court, refused to make any further allowance, but ordered tho residuary estate to be charged to the extent of t £IOOO to meet future claims for main- \\ tenan.ee by Amy Welsh. Mr Alpers, for appellant, dealt with t the ground on which tho court should award further maintenance- from the testator’s estate. He contended that tho court must take an ethical view and consider the deserts and merits : of the claimant. The court, he said, must look beyond the mere economic j position of the applicant for further j maintenance in the present case. Ap- ! pell ant had for many years stayed at 1 home and looked after her father. She was morally entitled to some further allowance from the estate. Air AY. J. Sim for respondents said that if an applicant for relief under the Family Protection Act had j maintenance on the standard of com- j fort to which he or she had been accustomed for some years past, then the ] Court had no power to grant further j maintenance under the Family Pro- j toction Act. Appellant, he said, had j not. come to Court with the candour j and frankness which the case required. | She had not disclosed frankly the ex- I tent of her property and had magnified j tho services which she had rendered to ! her father.