UNUSUAL DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 142, 18 June 1919, Page 6

UNUSUAL DISPUTE

OWNERSHIP OF SHARES

QUESTIONED

' The Chief' Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard evidence and legal argument in the Supreme Court this morning regarding a claim, in some respects an unusual one, for possession of a share certificate and other documents and effects made, by Lydia Caroline Williams, widow, and administratrix of the estate., effects, and credits of Harold Cecil Williams, deceased, late commercial traveller in the employ of Shariand and Company, against Harry Charlea Williams, caretaker of the Wellington Art Gallery.

Mr. T. Neave appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. yon Haast for defendant.

It was stated that Harold Cecil' Williams at the time of his death owned among other assets fifty preference shares in Shariand and Co., Ltd., Wellington, o£ £1 each. Plaintiff asked for judgment sbr possession of the share certificates, there being no dispute as to the ownership of the remainder of the effects. The defendant said that the plaintiff was his daughter-in-law. His son and daughter-in-law had not lived together for some years. His death occurred on 80Hi November last from pneumonic influenza. On the Monday preceding his death deceased was visited by witness, and during tho conversation deceased instructed1 witness to tu-ko over a certificate for the fifty preference shares. Witness told deceased that the shares would be handed to doeeaswd's sister. The certificates had sinco been kept by witness at the Art Gallery. He considered that he had tho right to hold tho remainder of deceased's effects until all debts contracted by deceased had been paid up. Deceased stated that he wished to make a. will in defendant's favour, but witness had said that he did not consider that necessary. Defendant had now given up all effects with the exception of the certificates.

In answer to Mr. Neave, witness replied that he had'not informed' plaintiff of his son's gift to him either before or after the issue of the writ, though he had explainedl the position to his solicitor after the issue of the writ. It was a private transaction, and he treated it as a private matter.

Plaintiff, giving evidence, stated that she had had difficulty in obtaining an interview with, the defendant, and that at nu «me did defendant mention to her that deceased had made him a gift of the shares. She was aware that deceased owned the shares, bnt did not specifically inquire where they were, and it was not until after the issue of tho. writ that plaintiff heard of the gift. Deceased's debts amounted to £88, and his assets, exclusive of the shares, to £70.

Defendant here stated through counsel that he. was quite willing to devote a necessary proportion of the share moneys towards making good deceased's debt 3.

Mr. Neave said that the case was a difficult one. The facts , and circumstances were not within the knowledge of anyone except the defendant. Hs submitted that under the circumstances the defendant had not discharged the onus of proving that there had been a gift. . ' His Honour remarked that the case was unique. In view of the past history and the. fact that the deceased had not been reconciled to his wife, the assumption would be that the son would make such a gift to his old father. Had the parties been in accord the position might have been different.

Mr. Neave urged that if the Court held <hat there had been a gift no coats should be allowed.

A rather peculiar point is involved in the action, insofar as the shares have hot'been transferred to defendant in the books of the company, and consequently the question is as- to whether the defendant is entitled to hold the share certificate for what it is worth.

Decision was reserved,