RELATIONS CUT OFF

Evening Post, Issue 149, 20 December 1935, Page 24

RELATIONS CUT OFF

ESTATE

DISTRIBUTION APPROVED

(By Telegraph-rPress Association.) DUNEDIN, December 19. The story of how John Davidson, a resident lor some years at Abbotsford, came to cut off relations with his family in Wales and travel across the world was told at the Supreme Court today. The case came before Mr. Justice Kennedy in the form of an application by a son, Francis Forbes Davidson, of Christchurch, to prove the iden- j tity of John Davidson and his domicile and to order the distribution of his estate. " Mr. J. C. Mowat appeared for Francis Forbes Davidson, plaintiff, and Sarah Ann Davidson, wife of John Davidson, and also for three other sons, Berkeley Gambold Davidson, Reginald John Davidson, and Leonard Holder Davidson, who were added as | plaintiffs. Mr. F. B. Adams appeared for the Public Trustee. , I The action was stated to have lasted two years and the estate was valued; at £2600. I Mr.-Mowat stated that John Davidson who had lived in Abbotsford had died in Dunedin on March 23, 1929. The action had been brought by Francis F. Davidson. Counsel stated what had been done in the preliminary proceedings and how the four other claim-1 ants had come to be included in the action. Five claimants had filed the necessary statements '• of claim. The widow resided in Wales, Berkeley Gambold Davidson in Alberta, and Leonard Fulton Davidson and Reginald John Davidson with, their mother in .Wales. Mr. Mowat added that in addition to these claimants there was another person who claimed to be a son. This was Alexander William Doutheridge Davidson, who resided in Connecticut, U.SA, but he had not filed a claim in accordance with - the rules of the court which had to decide the question of the identity of John Davidson as the husband of Sarah Ann Davidson and the father of | plaintiff and the other claimants. _ FATHER'S.'CAREER. John Davidson's i full name was John Gambold "Davidson and he had been bom in Wales on May 31, 1858, said Mr. Mowat. In April, 1908, he had left Wales and had gone to Canada and shortly after'he had been joined by his son, John Gambold Davidson. The father had corresponded with his wife for more than two years after his arrival in Canada. He had worked at his trade at a place near Winnipeg,! and :later in Ontario.' In September,l 1909, John Davidson had left Ontario with the intention of going to Van- J couver." He had written to his son, John Gambold, from there, and had asked him to write to him. That was the last that was known of the whereabouts of Davidson by his family. The son, John Gambold, had^written, but his letter had been returned through the dead letter office. . ;. John Davidson had certainly arrived in Vancouver, because a friend, Dr. O'Grady, had seen him there and had spoken to him. An intensive search had been made, in Vancouver and the surrounding districts for trace of Davidson, eyen-the aid of the NorthWest Mounted Police being enlisted, but-without success. John Davidson remained at Vancouver, it had been subsequently discovered; for 10 years. In November, 1920, he had left Vancouver": for Auckland, where he had landed iii December, 1920. He had then come straight to Dunedin and had stayed for some six months with Mf; F. B. Smith, ■whom he. had met in Vancouver. He had then purchased 11 acres of land at Abbotsford and had lived there' continuously for eight years from 1921 until his death in 1929. RELATIVES AND MONEY. Evidence snowed, Mr. Mowat stated, that Davidson for some reason or other had spoken bitterly about his relatives to a resident at Abbotsford and had said that they would get none of his money. He had stated that he was a Scotsman, not a Welshman, evidently with the intent of misleading people at Abbotsford. That, briefly, was the outline of the history ■of the life of John- Davidson since he had left his home in Wales. . His- Honour said that he had been through the voluminous evidence and that he was satisfied as to the identity of the man named in the claim. After hearing Mr. Mowat on the question of the domicile of John Davidson, his Honour said that he need not trouble to hear counsel further on the question of domicile in New Zealand. The court was occupied- at. some length in considering whether Alexander W. D. Davidson had any interest in.the estate, seeing that he had not filed a claim, although he had had notice rof the proceedings. It was agreed that he was one of the next of kin of deceased.- His Honour remarked that before Alexander W. D. Davidson could have his share transferred to him he 'must claim it. ' The Court had to decide whether he had been living at the time of his father's death.-' . / .■■'-., >( ■ " : ■ ■ .. ' ■■ ■'■■ DIVISION OP ESTATE. . It was admitted that the widow would be entitled to one-third of the. estate and four of the sons to twotenths each. The position of Alexander Davidson would have to be further defined. His Honour said that the action should be treated as a final hearing so far as the share of Alexander : W. D. Davidson was concerned. The judgment.must not be'treated as declaring that he was living or was alive when deceased himself had died. He. would adopt the suggestion made by counsel .that he might be declared tf> be entitled to two-fifteenths of the estate if living. A further application could be made to the Court if it was found that he was hot living. His Honour added that it appeared I a plain fact that Alexander W. D. Davidson was alive and would no doubt solve matters, by making an application in due course. He then formally approved of the draft. The widow and four of the sons received shares on the basis above referred to and the : case of Alexander W. D. Davidson will be settled in due course.