GIFT OF BONDS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 49, 26 August 1925, Page 15

GIFT OF BONDS

DISPUTE OVER A WILL. The case in which Horace Campbell Lusty, railway "engineer, of Christchurch, claimed from Arthur Roy Lusty, of Petone, £470. allegedly wrongfully converted to his own use, was concluded m the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Ostler yesterday afternoon. The plaintiff claimed four war bonds, each valued at £100, and as a further cause of the aettoh it was claimed that the defendant, as the servant or agent of his mother, drew from her account in the P.O. Savings Bank £35, and wrongfully converted it to his own use. The evidence of the defendant showed that the bonds had been given to him lay his mother, who had signed a memorandum to that effect. The plaintiff's case rested on the will of his mother, which provided that all her children were to benefit equally from her estate. The plaintiff called evidence as to the testatrix's 'mental condition shortly before her death, and as to the family agreement which was made to provide for his mother's keep. The plaintiff said that his mother stated that she would not leave part of her estate to certain members of the family, and she indicated sho would havo a "will prepared accordingly. Hi 3 Honour, summing tip, said it was a question as to whether the defendant had discharged the onus of proof resting on him, tho onus resting on him strongly, showing that his mother intended him to have the gift. The defendant, said his Honour, had produced in corrohoration a memorandum drawn up by himself and signed by his mother. That was sufficient corroboration of his story. The question then was: Did sho understand the gift in all its bearings? On the face of the evidence he was bound to hold that the gift of the bonds had been established. In regard to the £35, his Honour said that it seemed that some, if not all must have "been paid to tho mother! The defendant, however, had not discharged tho onus of proof in regard to £15, and judgment for that amount would be entered for the plaintiff. No order was made as to costs, but the plaintiff, having takea the action as a trustee, was permitted to tolled, his costs from the estate. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared fpr tha defendant, and Mr. S. A. Wireu for th» plaintiff.