FABULOUS FORTUNES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 131, 30 November 1926, Page 16

FABULOUS FORTUNES

HELD BY CHANCERY COURT

CLAIMANTS SELDOM SUCCESSFUL

DIFFICULTY OF SUBSTANTIATING CLAIMS.

Scattered about every part of the Empire, arc people who are under the delusion that they are the heirs to fabulous fortunes over which the Chancery Court in England exercises control ufitil the rightful heirs establish their claims. These visionaries have persuaded themselves that some distant relative who died about a hundred years ago left a large fortune, and,that as no one came forward to claim it at the time, the court took possession of it for the purpose of administering the estate. The fortune has gone on accumulating, and in those cases where town property formed part of the estate, it has swollen into millions of pounds, owing to the increased value of such property. Some of the heirs to these fabulous fortunes realise the utter impossibility of producing before the Chancery Court proof of the genuineness of their claims in the form of the birth and marriage certificates and wills of their ancestors for several generations back, and similar documents regarding members of other branches of. the family tree, and therefore accept the necessity of toiling for their living, instead of lolling about in sumptuous luxury with a dozen servants to "wait on them, as would be the case if they had their rights. Hut others never give up the vain hope that the Chancery Court will some day open wide its coffers and shower untold wealth on them. Since 1915 (stated the Melbourne "Age," recently) the Chancery Court has been issuing at regular intervals of three yearsan official, document which is intended to ■ dispel these illusions regarding fabulous | fortunes awaiting claimants, • but apparently these visionaries have never heard of this document.- It gives a" list of all funds of £50, and over which are in the possession of the' Court, and have been dormant for thep previous fifteen years, except for the continuous investment of the funds, or-placing additional dividends on deposit. This list can be obtained from the Government Stationery Office in London at a cost of ss, excluding post age. The latest list, issued gives details of 4300 accounts in the handß of the Court but so far from the v Court being in possession of untold millions, the total sum represented by these 4300 accounts is only £ 1,600,000. A few of these accounts have been dormant for two hundred years, and a fair number have been dormant for half that period. More than half of thesf accounts do not exceed £150 in value, and only about 250 exceed £1000. Anyone who believes thct he has an interest in any particular fund under the control of tha Chancery Court should apply in writing for information to the x\ssistant Paymaster-General, of the Supreme Court Pay Office, in London. But intending applicants are officially warned that funds under the control of the Court can b paid out or otherwise dealt with only by an order of the Court, and as the funds have remained in Court for upwards of a century in many eases, the proof of title would probably necessitate j the expenditure of more money than the I amount recoverable. Owing to the difficulty of establishing legal proof which will satisfy the Court, payment out of funds which have remained dormant for upwards of fifty years fa very rare. Some of the comparatively recent funds are hedged round with complications which render disbursement almost impossible. l<nor instance, in the account of Berrie v. Bower, opened in 1880, the legal represen- ■ latives of 56 named persons are all reqiuriod before any payment can be made. In this official document the public is warned that lists of "next of kin," "heirs to unclaimed money," etc., issued by various persons are not official, and sometimes contain gross mi?statements and exaggerations. THE FAZACKERLEY MILLIONS. But those visionaries who dream of obtaining huge fortunes from the Chancery Court are not the only people who regard themselves as the rightful heirs to millions. The Court take 3 charge of estates that are unclaimed, but there are visionaries who believe that they are the rightful heirs to estates that-were usurped by others many years ago. . A typical case'of the kind, that of the Fazackerley millions, crops up in the English newspapers from time to time. Nicholas Fazackerley, who was a member of the House of Commons, died in 1767, leaving considerable property in Lancashire and London. The value of this property is now estimated by the sanguine claimants at £17,000,000. They assert that the branch of the Fazackerley family to whom Nicholas bequeathed his property has become extinct, and that the estate should therefore be divided among the representatives of other branches of the« family. Seventy of these claimants pay a weekly contribution of 5a into a fund for legal researches into old documents for the purpose of strengthening their claims. Some of these seventy claimants are living in Australia and New Zealand, but the majority are in Lancashire, where Nicholas Fazackerley lived 160 years ago. . •■-'-.■■ * The Fazackerley fortune does not compare in magnitude with the £125,000,000 which'the Taylors of Falkirk claim should be disbursed among them. In 1785 a wealthy Dutchman named Peter Vanderhoist, who lived in his native country, left a fortune to his Scottish nephew, Peter Taylor, who also lived in Holland. Peter Vanderkoist's will provided that if his nephew died without leaving a direct heir the fortune should be divided among the nephew's next of kin after the lapse of 100 years. Peter Taylor left.no direct heir, and the period of 100 years having elapsed his next of kin, most of whom are settled at Falkirk, in Scotland, are ready to share the fortune. But so far there does not seem to be much prospect of them getting .it. There are occasional instances where the distant relatives of a wealthy man inherit an unexpected fortune. The most recent instance of the kind in England was that of Henry Thomas Coghlan, a miserly old bachelor who lived the life of a recluse at his home in Hyde Park Gardens, in the fashionable West End of London. He died in 1892, leaving an estate valued at £678,839. He was supposed to have made a will bequeathing his fortune to distant relativea on his father's side, but, though a reward of 10,000 guineas was offered in the advertising columns of the London newspapers for the production of this will, no will of any kind was ever found. Eventually the estate was divided, as the result of protracted proceedings in the Chancery Court, among his next of kin, who were cousins on the maternal side. There were only four of them, and they shared equally in the division of the estate. BANK OF ENGLAND. Another widespread delusion on the part of people who are in search of imaginary fortunes left by distant relatives is that the Bank of England possesses millions of ■pounds of unclaimed money. Sir Brien Cokayne, a former governor of the bank, in giving evidence in 1919 before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, said the bonk was Constantly receiving claims from persons resident in the United States and various parts of the British Empire for money which was said to be standing to the credit of deceased relatives. Some of these claims were for fabulous amounts, but every claim that had been examined was found to be without foundation. He also told the Committee that the total sum at the credit of dormant accounts at the bank waa £113,000, but the owners of about t £40,000 of this total could be traced. Some ot the dormant accounts dated back to 1720. The secretary of Messrs. Coutts and Co., one of the oldest private banks in England (which was amalgamated seven years ago with the National Provincial Bank), told this select committee that Coutts's had £174,000 in dormant balances (i.e., accounts that had been inoperative for six years and upwards), of which about 20 per cent, would be claimed in the normal course of events. Some of these balances dated back to 1777. One balance was paid to the heirs of the customer after having been dormant for 78 years. Legally a bank is not compelled to repay money that has been in its undisturbed possession for upwards of six years, and the general practice is to transfer to profit and loss account such 'dormant balances. But every bank keeps a record of its dormant balances, and when the question of repayment to the rightful owner arises no bank would take shelter behind its legal position. It was mentioned by the secretory of

Messrs. Coutts and Co. that they often had visits from people inquiring about money belonging to them, or to deceased relatives, that had been unclaimed for a long period. Most of these visitors were insane on the point, and in such cases the officials of the bank merely pretended to search the books for traces of the account. Sir Walter Leaf, chairman of the Westminster Bank, told the select committee that a return made to him, as chairman of the Institute of Bankers, by every bank in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the Bank of England and foreign banks, showed that the total sum standing to the credit of current accounts that had been dormant for six years and upwards was £2,220,020, and the dormant deposit accounts totalled £5,787,659. Of this gross total, £8,005,580, it was estimated that £5,162,415 would be claimed by the owners. UNCLAIMEO VALUABLES. But what of the valuables in the form iof jewellery and plate, and securities in I ! the form of stocks and shares, that are left with the banks for Bafe custody and ! never claimed? The select. committee heard evidence on this point, and in its report stated: —"There is a very consider- ! able quantity of boxes and parcels of which the contents are unknown lying in the strongrooms of banks, and there is a proportion of which the owners have been lost sight of, and which in all probability will never be opened unless Par,- ---! liament gives directions for their examination. It is likely that many of these boxes and parcels are empty, having contained articles which have been withdrawn, the box being left with the bank from motives of convenience, or because the owner has intended at some future time to use the box'afresh. Further, of the boxes and parcels which are not empty, it seems probable that very many contain legal or financial documents, which by lapse of time have ceased to have any value or interest. But when all these large deductions have been made there is probably a small residuum of boxes and parcels of which the owners have been lost sight of, and which contain articles of some value or papers of some interest. We were told, for instance, that in the "Bank of England there is a box of pictures of which the owner cannot be found. At any rate, it is not satisfactory that there should be an accumulation of boxes and parcels of unknown contents and unknown ownership, and that nothing should be done to inspect them, and to take such action as might be reasonable in consequence of that inspection." In some cases boxes containing valuables and papers have been handed over to the descendants of the original owners after having been untouched in the bank's strongrooms for over seventy years. One box in the possession of Messrs. Coutts ! and Co. which had been placed in the [possession of the bank for safe custody iby the fourth holder of an English peerage was sent to his descendant, who was the seventh holder of the peerage, but I when the latter found on examination that the box contained only letters relat- ! ing to an old family scandal he sent it j back to the bank.