SHARES IN ESTATE

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23789, 7 November 1942, Page 6

SHARES IN ESTATE

APPLICATION TO COURT

In the Supreme Court In Christchurch yesterday Mr Justice Northcroft heard an originating summons initiated by Mrs Dorothy Lilly Rickard, of Napier, plaintiff, asking that the Court should determine the ownership of certain shares valued at approximately £4OOO, which, she submitted, had been held jointly by herself and her late father. Dr. Alfred Charles Sandston, of Christchurch. Dr. Haslam appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Roy Twyncham represented the New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd., the executors and trustees of the estate, and Mr G. G. Lockwood appeared for Lawrence Rickard, infant, of Napier, who was also joined as a defendant. Mr Justice Northcroft held, however, that if there was any doubt as to facts Mrs Rickard would have to sue by writ His Honour objected to the procedure adopted by the plaintiff. Dr. Haslam said that the suit was a friendly one. The plaintiff, he said, was the only daughter of Dr. Sandston. and the shares had been purchased by him on their joint behalf. Until his death she had received half of the income from the shares. The New Zealand Insurance Company, as trustees, had asked her to bring the present suit by originating summons. There was no dispute as to fact. His Honour remarked that if the interests of the child defendant (who was a beneficiary in the estate) were vitally concerned, that had not been the proper procedure to adopt, even though it was a question of fact and not of law. “If the P 3l . 11 ~a gree on a Proper statement of facts, he said, “there is no need for the matter to come before me at all. If not you will have to adopt another course."’ After hearing argument from the other counsel, his Honour stated that the onlv way in which an order could be obtained from the Court would be for the plaintiff to issue a writ of summons. At present however, he was not prepared to make an order, and the present summons would be dismissed.