Ernest Herbert Sandford (1878 - 1919)

Born 1878 in New Zealand

Husband of Ethel Holmwood (Pearce) Friend — married 3 Nov 1903 (to 1916) in Beresford St Church, Auckland, New Zealand

Descendants

Died 1919 at about age 41 in New Zealand

Problems/Questions Profile manager: Jeff Thomas [send private message]

Biography

Ernest Herbert was born in 1878. He was the son of Mary and Thomas Clark Sandford ^[1] He married Ethel Holmwood Pearce in 1903 ^[2] They divorced in 1916

SITTING IN DIVORCE. A short sitting of the Supreme Court in Divorce was held yesterday morning, His Honor Mr. Justice Stringer presiding. Ethel Holmwood Sandford (Mr. E. J. Prendergast) petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with Ernest Herbert Sandford, on the grounds of misconduct and desertion. She applied for the custody of the three children of the marriage. Evidence was given by the petitioner and by the stepfather of the correspondent. It was stated that the respondent had expressed his willingness if a decree nisi were granted, to allow petitioner a certain amount for maintenance. He agreed to her having the custody of the children. His Honor said he was satisfied from the evidence that misconduct had been proved He did not want to put any obstacle in the way if the respondent approved of the divorce proceedings.A decree nisi would be granted, to be moved absolute in three months - Petitioner was granted the interim custody of the children ^[3] .

He passed away in 1919 age 41 ^[4]

MAINTAINING CHILDREN. DECEASED FATHER'S ESTATE. INCREASED ALLOWANCE SOUGHT. An application under the Family Protection Act for an increased allowance to be drawn from the estate of Ernest Herbert Sandford, deceased, for the maintenance of his three children, was heard before Mr. Justice Salmond at the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr. Patterson appeared in support of the application, and Mr. West represented the -Guardian Trust and Executors' Company, Ltd., in which the estate was vested. Counsel explained that the total" estate included property worth about £2000, from which had to be deducted £200 due on a property in the estate and a legacy of £300. Mrs. Sandford, who had divorced her husband, had received alimony till she married again, and since, then had received £6 a month for the maintenance of the children. It was requested that the amount be increased to 15s a week for each child. Counsel suggested that, to do this the Court should trench on the capital of the estate, and even go the length of estreating the legacy. The children were delicate, and their stepfaiher was not in a position to make the necessary special provision for medical attention for them. Mr. West said the, Guardian Trust Company, as executor of the estate, was prepared to accept the ruling of the Court on the matter. The real conflict was whether the legatee of the £300 should lose the money. Counsel said it would be better for the children to have something to receive from the estate when they became of age. The mother, was now receiving an income of about £70 a year from the estate. The mother and stepfather were entitled to provide the children with necessaries. , The Judge said there were two aspects to the case. The application was an attack on the £300. The legatee had a clear moral claim, which was properly recognised by the deceased. The other aspect related to the claim of the children to receive part of the capital, instead of merely the income from it. He was not prepared to make an order as requested. The deceased made a wise provision in leaving the money to the children when they reached a certain age. The children were legally entitled to be maintained by the mother and step-father. The latter was quite aware of the burden when he married. If the children required medical attention, as suggested, the £70 a year income could be used tor the purpose. The mother and stepfather should supply the necessaries.^[5]

Sources

1. ↑ http://bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/
   • NZ Birth registration 1878/18290
2. ↑ http://bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/
   • NZ Marriage registration 1903/5431
3. ↑ New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16417, 20 December 1916
4. ↑ http://bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/
   • NZ Death registration 1919/7231
5. ↑ New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17827, 7 July 1921