Supreme Court Retired Farmer’s Claim For House Fails

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30289, 15 November 1963, Page 12

Supreme Court Retired Farmer’s Claim For House Fails

A retired farmer. Thomas Reginald Black Fowler, aged 73, failed yesterday in his claim in the Supreme Court against tire estates of his two aunts, formerly owners of the Lansdowne property. Halswell. for a house and section valued at £2200 which he alleged his aunts had promised to him after their deaths. The plaintiff (Mr W. A. Anderson) brought his claim against the New Zealand Insurance Company as administrator of the estates of Muriel Beatrice Sharp, who died in 1954, and Anna Maria Sharp, who died in 1960, Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the defendant company. The case was heard on Tuesday and Wednesday. Mr Justice Macarthur gave judgment for the defendant. He reserved the question of costs. The plaintiff alleged he had sold his farm near Blenheim in 1952 to live with his aunts | at Lansdowne. He received l award wages, in return for

helping them in the homestead, and gardening. His aunts built a house on the property for him and his wife which, he said, they had promised would be left to him, with a section, upon their deaths. Giving his judgment hts Honour said he was left in doubt as to the exact nature of the arrangement between the plaintiff and his aunts He referred to the fact that after the plaintiff and his wife had shifted to Lansdowne his aunts each gave instructions for new wills. In each there was a carefully drawn provision which entitled the plaintiff to purchase at valuation the interest of each aunt in the house and land if he still lived there at the time of tlieir deaths. These wills were executed in July. 1953. Both women were of integrity and well thought of in the community. It was difficult to understand how they could have executed wills containing such specific provisions relating to the house if there had been, in their understanding, any contract as claimed by the plaintiff, his Honour said. He said the plaintiff could only explain the matter by saying there must have been a mistake on his aunts' part. His Honour dealt with other matters of evidence, and law relating to contract, which he said had failed to satisfy the onus on the plaintiff of proving an alleged contract between the plaintiff and his aunts.