EXPENSES OF TRIP TO ENGLAND

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 49, 21 November 1928, Page 13

EXPENSES OF TRIP TO ENGLAND

SON SUES FATHER’S ESTATE QUESTION OF GIFT OR LOAN Dominion Special Service. Christchurch, November 20. The cost of a trip to England was the main bone of contention in a case involving a claim for £l5OO by a son against the estate of his father heard by Mr. Justice Adams in the Supreme Court to-day. Plaintiff was Herbert William Acton-Adams, of Tipapa, North Canterbury, and defendants (who were executors in the estate of the late William Acton-Adams) were Reginald Leadhara Acton-Adams, William Miles Acton-Adams, Donald Sinclair Murchison and Cecil Claude Mor-, ton Ollivier. Plaintiff asked for a declaration that he was entitled to a division of the residuary estate of the late William Acton-Adams at Tipapa, North Canterbury, and of Knightsbridge, Middlesex,’ England, without any deduction on account of an alleged debt of £l5OO claimed by the trustees of the estate against plaintiff and for a declaration that no debt was owing by plaintiff to the trustees. Plaintiff is the eldest Son of William Acton-Adams, who died in England in 1924, leaving an estate valued at £200,000. The statpment of claim set out that in 1921 William Acton-Adams sent instructions, from England for plaintiff and his wife, daughter and son to visit him in England as he was very ill. Mr. C. C. M. Ollivier, attorney in New Zealand for William ActonAdams. provided for plaintiff the sum of £2500 out of money belonging to William Acton-Adams as■■ a reasonable sum to defray the expenses of the voyage. Plaintiff and his family were affectionately received by William Acton-Adams, who instructed his accountant in New Zeaalnd to allow plaintiff only £lOOO on account of the expenses. ' The trustees debited plaintiff with the sum of £2500, but credited plaintiff with £lOOO. The expenses exceeded £2500, and plaintiff had to appoint a manager on the Tipapa property. The sum of £l5OO therefore was claimed. The defence was that the sum of £2500 was loaned as provided by Ollivier, who had no authority to make a gift to plaintiff. At the time plaintiff knew that the siini was not a gift and that he was liable for repayment. As William Acton-Adams had instructed his accountants to credit plaintiff with the sum of £lOOO, plaintiff was discharged from his liability to repay that sum, but his liability to repay the sum of £l5OO remained. Mr. JI. J. Gresson, with him Mr. H. D. Van Asch, appeared for plaintiff and Mr. A. T. Donnelly, with him Mr. M. J. Burns, for defendants. Mr. Donnelly remarked that the estate had been valued nt £460,000. In the course of evidence it was stated that plaintiff got £150,000 cash under his father’s wijl, which was more than the other two sons got. Plaintiff, in evidence, stated that in England he was offered the whole of the estate, but told his father to adhere to his old will. Mr. Donnelly: Amongst your items there are £l7O to pay a Christchurch draper and £lOO on ,the steamer. I suppose that was for lemonade? Plaintiff: Oh, no. You can't take a family Homo without these expenses. His Honour reserved judgment.