A NEWSPAPER ESTATE

Evening Star, Issue 23136, 9 December 1938, Page 13

A NEWSPAPER ESTATE

CLAIM OF ELDEST SON [Per United Press Assoctjtios.] CHRISTCHURCH, December 8. _ Claiming a share in the estate of his late father, Mr Robert Bell, newspaper proprietor, of Christchurch, his eldest son, Robert Brown Bell, proceeded in the Supreme Court to-day against the Perpetual Trustees, Estate, and Agency Company Ltd., executors of the will, and the'beneficiaries. Nine counsel are engaged. The testator’s estate amounted, said counsel (Mr Sim), to £75,558, which was divided amongst the widow and children, with the exception of the plaintiff, and the 11 grandchildren, with small bequests to Canterbury College and the Ashburton High School. “ The plaintiff’s claim is based,” said counsel, “ on his health—he is a broken man, 50 years’ old, who has spent his energies. He further claims it was his life’s work that put the family in its happy financial position.” Mr C. S. Thomas, for William Brown Witherow Bell, of Ashburton, said he found some difficulty in putting his client’s case, first, because of the unusual claims made in the plaintiff’s affidavits, and also because of the long period, from 1903 to 1937, which they covered. The period from 1903 to 1922 was of no real importance in an understanding of the essentials of the case. The plaintiff, it had at once to be admitted, was a capable man, but in his affidavits he had painted the lily. If he had not he was even more capable than the deefndants thought, and was therefore well able to earn his living. The deceased was a man of outstanding ability in the newspaper world, and had been president of the World's Press Congress on two occasions. Many of the statements in the plaintiff’s affidavits were very much exaggerated, and some were untrue. It was absurd to say, for instance, that as a boy of 14 the plaintiff could have materially assisted in the establishment of the Ashburton ‘ Guardian.’ His sister said that the plaintiff had overstated the value of his assistance to his father, and a record of the investments made by the testator from an early period showed that the finances of the ‘ Guardian ’ were not in a straitened condition from 1903 onward. All three sons actually helped in the business as they became old enough, and no credit was specially attachable to any one. The period from 1922 to 1937 was important to the court. There was no suggestion during the four years before 1922, when be -was advertising manager of the ‘ Dominion,’ that the plaintiff’s health was bad. He was then earning up to £9OO a year. In 1922 the testator offered to give the plaintiff the Timaru ‘Post,’ the managingdirectorship of the ‘ Guardian/ and an appointment as his attorney. The plaintiff showed his income in the years from 1922 to 1925 as £1,026 a year from salaries from the two newspapers «ud from his war pension. The plaintiff also had 12,000 shares in the Timaru ‘ Post,’ hut bis affidavit was silent on the point of anv other income than the £1,026. Just after the Timaru ‘ Post ’ was taken over letters from the plain-

tiff to his father showed that there was no animosity between them. In 1925 the Timaru ‘ Post ’ was losing ground, and was sold for £20,500. Until then the plaintiff was in complete control of the newspaper, and that it lost ground seemed inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claim that he had by his ability made a fortune for his father. Out of the sale of the Timaru ‘ Post ’ the plaintiff was left with a net sum of £10,330 There was a_ lack of frankness and detail concerning the transactions, and no details had yet been brought before the court. The plhintiff came out of the ‘ Post ’ transaction with about £9,000 in cash. He put £6,000 into the * Guardian * at a price which was fixed by his father. It was suggested that he was pushed into the transaction, but other members of the family bought shares at the same price and the dividends showed that they were worth it. In 1927 they returned dividends of £657 12s 6d to plaintiff on his investment of £6,000. Mr Thomas said the plaintiff admitted that after 1925 he was drawing a satisfactory sum and was living in a manner he considered befitted his position. He apparently was living at the rate of £1,500 a year. The plaintiff? income in 1926 on his own figures was £1,066, and to that had to be added the income from the ‘ Guardian ’ shares and other sources. There was, for instance. £3.000 in cash, the residue from the ‘ Post ’ transaction, which must have produced some income. Iho case was adjourned.

Citizens’ Day Nusery (Wellington), £l5O.