WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 134, 9 June 1925, Page 5

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

A MISSING BENEFICIARY. \ DISAPPEARED 23 YEARS AGO. Ml-r-K OF NAMKS IX WILL. Alfred Duncan (.hiss, who disappeared, l-rr-n heard of, Imi I'fPn found liy the Siiprpmo (■inn to be entitled to a fourth eharr in Hip estate uf hi* deceased father, .lolm Gla-s. The t nun was inki-ii for an intorprc- | , tation of thp will. which was of an extraordinary nature, in that thnrc was a misuse of names, "ilm , either lv want I of knowledge or forget fulness." 1" K»v- ' ing judgment to-day, Mr. -liutice Hoed , stated that tln> question to bo deter- , mined iraa as to which of. the two, the , plaintiff, Alfrpil George Douglas Glass, ( a grandaon and 1.-frally adopted son at , the testator, or his father, Alfred ; Duncan i.lass, fun "' llic ,O " UI " •or was entitled to tho share , of tho residuary .-into bequeathed to "my son, Ufred Dou-las Glass. The v ln mi ill's birth was registered by his m.-uher in the name of Alfred George : Dongas Ula#». and his father's name was stated to !»• Alfred Douglas Glass. although his eorre.-t name was Alfred! Duncan liliw. W'hi'ii ten months old, the plaintiff was adopted by his grandparents under the name ot Douglas Ulass. The consent to the adoption was correctly sinned by the parents of the child, but ihe body of the document plated the name of the father in three places to be Arthur Duncan Glass. Plaintiff's oprtiHeute of birth stated the father's name to be Alfred Douglas i.lass. In tho will there were two mislakes in tho names of the oilier three children. The plaintiff was adopted by the tes- ' ; tator and his wife on .May 13, l'Jlfi. and ; was brought tip by them. His Honor thought the probabilities were that the testator was not aware that the plaintiff had any other Christian name than Douglas. Evidence by relatives left the I question in doubt, but that doubt was I largely dissipated by a consideration of the following facts: — ll) The order of adoption, which would be in tlie possession of the testa- | tor, gives the name as Douglas, only; (2) the plaintiff went to school, and. the instructions of the Education Board, I which arc printed on the school register, i are that the names in full of the pupil is to be registered. At two .separate schools, Stanley Bay and Devonport, I the testatoi caused the plaintiff's name | to he entered as Douglas: [">) at the j ape of nine the plaintiff was an inmate | of the Auckland Hospital, and the j testator entered his name there as | Douglas. \ Read a Letter and Died. The grandparents were much attnehed | to the plain;iff and referred to him as , their son. and he lived with them till ] he was about the age of fourteen, when he was convicted of theft. He was apparently not punished for this, hut i a short time later, being again convicted of the same class of crime, he was sent to an industrial school. He escaped from there, and wrote to his grandmother informing her of the fact. .Upon reading the letter, she fainted, and died the same night. That was | about April 14. I'.UT. The testator died j on the 21st of May. 1017. He made his | will five weeks after the death of his wife. The teatator attributed to the plaintiff n large measure of the responsibility fpr his wife's death, and stated that he would have nothing more to do with him. according to the uncontradicted evidence of the eldest son. William Campbell

Glass, who could not, said Mr. Justice j Reed, he affected by the result of the ' rase. Th ; s communication thok place when William Campbell Glass was in Auckland attending his mother's funeral. The same witness gave evidence nf his father's statements, at that time, with regard to his intentions as to the di:>posal of his property. Disagreement With Testator. The conduct of Alfred Duncan Glass (father of plaintirTl in respect of drunkenness, as well as in connection with the birth of the plaintiff, which took place about four months after his marriage, caused a disagreement with the testator. The statement sworn to by the testator as to his reasons for desiring to adopt the plaintiff, contained the following: "The father of the child is

not ahle to keep it. The mother docs . not know hmv to bring it up. This is ' the third time we have had to take ' it from hor. nnd bring it bm-k to health." I Pome short time after the adoption.! Alfred Dnncnn Oiass disappeared, and linn not hepn heard of since. The evidence, snid his Honor, did not show that the disagrppment with the testator was really serious. Moreover, it was clear that'he used to visit the house of the testator after the adoption and Up to the time that he finally left Auckland. After referring to evidence regarding the relations eNistinj; between the two. his Honor Fa id the facts might he summarised as follow?: ill That due. either I to the imperfect memory of the testator, or to a misunderstanding: of his instructions by the draughtsman, at least four of his children are incorrectly named in j the will. C 2) The plaintiff was always I known to tin? testator as Douglas, and the probabilities .ire that it was not known to thr testator that he had any! other Christian name. fill That tfie | plaintiff was treated with affectici. by the testator, but was wayward and difficult to control. 14) That t'.ie testator always retained his affection for his son. Alfred Duncan, and in his last days turned against his grandson, to whose misbehaviour he attributed in a great measure, the sudden death of his wife. Other aspects of the case were reviewed at some length, and his Honor said on the whole he found it impossible to resist the conclusion that the son, Alfred Dnncnn Class, was entitled to the fourth share of the testator's residuary estate. Thorp was some difficulty with regard to costs, and the question was deferred fur argument. The will was proved on July 14. 1017 and the estate was distributed, with tin , exception of a share for oilier beneficiaries, and the share now in quest ion. The executrix before distributing the estate should have had the present question decided. It was her fault, therefore, that the corpus of the estate wu« not available to answer the costs. Mr. Cocker represented plaintiff at the hearing, and Mr. Xorthcroft and Mr. <jre?ory represented the other parties interested.