ELDEST SON’S CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 65, 9 December 1938, Page 13

ELDEST SON’S CLAIM

Share Of Father’s Estate Sought NINE COUNSEL ENGAGED By Teh-graph—Press CHRISTCHURCH. December s. Claiming a share in the estate of bis late father. Robert Bell, newspaper proprietor. Christchurch. eldest sou of the late Robert Brown Bell, proceeded in tin.' Supreme Court today against the Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency Co.. Ltd., executors of the will, and beneficiaries. Nine counsel are engaged. Testator's estate amounted. said counsel, Mr. Sim. to £70.555, which was divided among the widow and children, with the exception of plainfill', and the 11 grandchildren, with small bequests to Canterbury College and the Ashburton High School. “Plaintiff's claim is based.” said counsel, “on his health—he is a broken man 50 years old who has spent his energies—and his financial position at testator's death, lie further claims that it was his life’s work that put the family in its happy financial position.”

One of the points that might be raised by the defence, said Mr. Sim, was that plaintiff had received £lO.OOO before his father's death and had lived in better circumstances than the others. Plaintiff was wounded in the neck during the war and he drew a pension of £2O a year. Because of the injury to his nervous system, doctors considered that he would never again be capable of -sustained mental effort. From the age of 14 lie worked excessively long hours assisting his father in the early days of the “Ashburton Guardian.” and the doctors attributed his present nervous exhaustion in part to this. Counsel's Suggestion. Mr. L. J. Hensley, who appeared with Mr. Sim for plaintiff, suggested that certain assets b? detached from the estate to provide for plaintiff and Hurt the rest, bo taken from the residin'.

Mr. ('. 11. Upham, for tiie Perpetual

Trustees Company, produced an affidavit of A. C. Brotherton, who for two years before testator's death acted as his attorney. Testator was then apparently alert and with business ability unimpaired, but was disappointed with his eldest son. Mr. C. S. Thomas, for William Brown Witherow Bell. Ashburton, said he. found some difficulty in putting his client’s case, first because of the unusual claims made in plaintiff's affidavits and also .because of the long period, front 1903 to 1937, which they covered. The period from 1903 to 1922 was of no real importance in an understanding of the essentials of the case. Plaintiff, it had at once to be admitted, was a capable man, but in his affidavits he had painted the lily. Tf he had not, he was even more capable than defendants thought, and was therefore well able to earn his living. Deceased was a man of outstanding ability in the newspaper world, and had been president of the l World Press Congress on two occasions. Many of the statements in plaintiff's affidavits were very much exaggerated, and some were untrue. It wag absurd to say, for instance, that as a -boy of 14'plaintiff could have materially assisted in the establishment of the “Ashburton Guardian.” His sister said that plaintiff had overstated the value of his assistance to his father, and a record of investments madp by testator from an early period showed that the finances of the “Guardian” were not in a straitened condition from 1903 onward. All three sons actually helped in Ihe business as they became old enough, and no credit was specially attachable to anyone.

The period from 1922 to 1937 was important, to the Court. There was no suggestion during the four years before 1922, when he was advertising manager of “The Dominion,” that plaintiff’s health was bad. In 1922 testator offered to give plaintiff the “Timaru Post,” the managing directorship of the “Guardian” and an appointment as his attorney. Plaintiff showed his income in the years from 1922 to 1925 as £lO2O a year from salaries from the two newspapers and from a war pension. Plaintiff also had 12,000 shares in the “Timaru Post” but his affidavit, was silent on the point of any other income than the £1026. Sale of Newspaper.

■Just after the "Timaru Post” was taken over, letters from plaintiff to his father showed th a t there was no animosity between tehm. In 1925 the “Timaru Post” was losing ground and was sold for £20,500. Till then plaintiff was in complete control of the newspaper and that it lost ground seemed inconsistent with plaintiff's claim that he had, by his ability, made a fortune for his father. Out of the sale of the "Timaru Post,” plaintiff was left with a net sum of £10,330. There was a lack of frankness and detail concerning the transactions and no details had yet been brought before the court. Plaintiff came out of the “Post” transaction with about £9OOO in cash. He put £6OOO into the “Guardian” at a. price which was fixed by his father. It was suggested that he was pushed into the transaction but other members of the family bought shares at the same price and the dividends showed that they were worth it. In 1927 they returned dividends of £657/12/6 to plaintiff on his investment of £6OOO. Mr. Thomas said plaintiff admitted that, after 1925 he was drawing a satis factory sum and was living in a inan ner he considered befitted his position. He apparently was living at a rate of £l5OO a year. Plaintiff's income in 1926, on his own figures, was £1066 and to that had to be added income from “Guardian” shares and other sources. There was, for instance, £3OOO in cash, residue.from the “Post” transaction, which must have produced some income. The case was adjourned.