BELL ESTATE CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 66, 10 December 1938, Page 18

BELL ESTATE CLAIM

Eldest Son’s Suit For Larger Share

ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL By Telegraph—Press Association. CIIRISTCH U RCII, Decern her 9. Further addresses by counsel were heard in the Supreme Court today in the action in which R. B. Bell claimed a larger share in the estate of his late father, Robert Bell, newspaper proprietor, Christchurch. The estate is worth more than £70,000. Defendants are the Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency Co.. Ltd., executors of the will, and the beneficiaries. In 1926, said Mr. C. S. Thomas, for William Bell, a beneficiary, plaintiff’s income was £llBl, and in the following years £1763. £1631, £1591, £1476. £1506, £1426, £l3ll, ami £1306, dropping in 1935. when he relinquished his directorship of the “Ashburton Guardian,” to £B7l. Over these years his average annual income was £1406. At the time of his father’s death his Honour Mr. Justice Northcroft pointed out it had shrunk to between £2OO and £3OO.

Mr. Thomas suggested that the father in making his will was entitled to take in consideration that Robert had enjoyed a four-figure income for years. It was significant, said Mr. Thomas, that plaintiff used part of the “Timaru Post” proceeds to clear off his debts, yet since 1925 he had gone back into debt £4480, showing that his spending had exceeded his income by over £3OO a year, besides the capital remaining from the “Timaru Post” deal.

In answer to his Honour, Mr. Thomas said that the father was entitled to believe a.t his death that Robert was well off. The Court was entitled to take Robert’s expenditure into account and decline to hand over a lump sum to a spendthrift. In answer to a further question by his Honour. Mr. Thomas said he would invite the Court to infer from plaintiff’s lack of candour that his present position was not as desperate as he made out. At August, 1937, plaintiff had a balance of assets over liabilities totalling £5503. His son had an interest of £lBOO in his uncle’s estate. Plaintiff’s trouble was, said Mr. Thomas, that he was suffering from self-pity and a sense of grievance against his father and other members of the family. He had big ideas apparently about, the sort of job that was worthy of his attention. The real position was that plaintiff had been a good son, and his father had wanted to see him fill his shoes. With the £2097 left to him in his father’s will plaintiff had received from his father £12,427, as against £14,484 that the other brothers received. Though they received some £2OOO more, plaintiff had been receiving a large income over many years.