ESTATE of Frederick John Tasker (1856-1937) Palmerston North
FREDERICK JOHN TASKER (1856-1937) was born in Southwark, Camberwell, England to George TASKER (1933-1915) & Ann JAMES (1834-1912) and died in Palmerston North aged 80
Frederick married Christina Gibson LINN (1854-1894) 12 Sep 1876 in East Taiere, Otago and had 9 children (go to above link)
Frederick next married mary Teresa WELLS (1867-1936) 25 June 1895 in Christchurch
FREDERICK died 8 Feb 1837 aged 80 in Palmerston North
Evening Post, 9 February 1937 - OBITUARY
... Mr Frederick John Tasker, formerly a well-known hotelkeeper, died at Palmerston North on Monday in his eighty-first year. He came out to New Zealand in the sailing ship 'Wannington' and landed at Port Chalmers in 1875. After a few years in the South Island he went to Wanganui and was an active member of the Union and Wangaui Bowling Clubs, winning several trophies and medals. He was a life member of the Oddfellows' Lodge. Mr Tasker was engaged in the hotel business at Wanganui and Palmerston North, retiring some years ago. He was secretary of the Wellington Bowling Club for five years, when living in Wellington. He was president one year and secretary for five years of the Palmerston North Bowling Club, and as an active member won many trophies. He was a member of the champion rink for New Zealand in 1915.
Mr Tasker was twice married. He leaves a grown-up family by his first wife of five daughters and one son. There are 20 grandchildren and 27 great-grandchildren
Evening Post, 28 March 1938 - DISPUTED ESTATE
... Seven counsel were engaged in the Court of Appeal today in a dispute over the will of the late Frederick John Tasker, of Palmerston North, the appeal being against a Supreme Court judgment of Mr Justice Smith under the Family Protection Act, 1908. The testator died on February 8, 1937, and the will, dated July 21, 1936 left an estate of approximately £20,000 (Sep 2012 equivalent of $1,855,000) for distribution, He had been twice married, but both his wives predeceased him.
On the Bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Callan and Mr Justice Northcroft
The appellants were
* Mrs Grace Eleanor Hughson (Hawera)
* Mrs Ann Emily Park (Inglewood) and
* George Frederick Tasker (Sydney) plaintiffs in the Supreme Court;
and the respondents were the Public Trustee (executor and trustee of the estate)
* Mrs Christina Clara Harker (Palmerston North)
* Mrs Alice Ada Alberta McKay (Gisborne) and
* Mrs Violet Mary Bee (Palmerston North), defendants in the Supreme Court
Mr P. B. Cooke, K.C., with him Mr T. P. Cleary, appeared for Mrs Hughson; Mr R. J. O'Dea (Hawera) for Mrs Park; Mr J. D. Willis for G. F. Tasker; Mr D. R. White for the Public Trustee; Mr G. C. Petersen (Palmerston North0 for Mrs harker and Mrs McKay; and Mr J. A. Grant (Palmerston North) for Mrs Bee,
Application was made to the Supreme Court by the three plaintiffs and by the defendant Mrs Bee for further provision out of the estate, and was opposed by Mrs Harker and Mrs McKay. The parties were children of the testator. The testator, said Mr Justice Smith in his judgment, made special provisions for Mrs Harker because she gave up her own home and went to care for him when he was 80 and his wife had become seriously ill.
The circumstances of the applicants varied, but they all had children of their own to whom they were entitled to look for support if need be. They made common cause in attacking the special provision in favour of Mrs Harker. His final impression was the same as his initial impression; that none had a claim comparable with Mrs Harker's, that the Court could not weigh the testator's provision too nicely, and that the applicants had not shown that the testator had failed in his moral duty to make proper and adequate provision for his children, having regard to his means, the means and deserts of the children, and the relative urgency of their claims. The application would be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, with a slight variation that had been agreed upon by counsel during the hearing. The Court considered the will a just one and that it could not be said that the testator in all the circumstances of the case had failed in his moral duty of making adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of all his children, including those who ere making the claim