COMPLICATED CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20363, 21 July 1934, Page 8

COMPLICATED CASE.

Family Protection Act Invoked. SUPREME COURT CLAIM

Judgment was given by Mr Justice Johnston in the Supreme Court yesterday, extending the provisions of Section 33 of the Family Protection Act for the benefit of the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of a testator. The section mentioned permits an application to be made for further provision from an estate by or on behalf of a widow or a husband or the children of a testator. The case was made the more interesting because the grandchildren were beneficiaries under the will, while plaintiff, a son of the testator, was not. It was stated that he was an inmate of a State institution, and no claim was made for his maintenance. . Plaintiff was John Hammond, late ol Timaru, and provision was claimed from the estate of the late Albert Hammond, retired farmer, the claim being directed against the Public Trustee as executor and trustee of the estate. Mr Archpr appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Cuthbert for the executor and trustee. Mr Quigley, Mr Lockwood and Mr Bowie appeared respectively for Emma Frances Lovejoy, Rose Gilles and Nellie Bartel, beneficiaries. Mr Archer said that the undistributed value of the estate was £1550. Claimant, who was a son of the testator, was not able to provide for his wife and children, having become an inmate of an institution. His familj' were in need of support, and. the question to be decided was what portion of the estate should be touched in making further provision under the claim. Mr Quigley, in opposing the claim, said that the Family Protection Act existed for the benefit of the widow and children of the testator. Its scope could not be extended to make provision for a daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the testator. The present claim was brought on behalf of a son, who was being maintained by the State in an institution and no claim was being made for his maintenance.

After hearing counsel for the various beneficiaries his Honor stated that some provision should be made and intimated that an order for 20s a week should be settled between the parties.