SON’S INHERITANCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 March 1929, Page 3

SON’S INHERITANCE

APPEAL TO COURTS.

(Per Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, March 25. The estate of the late Alexander Bell, runholder, of Auckland, which at the most recent computation, has been valued at £344,000, was the subject of a legal claim by one of the sons, William Bell, in the Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiff had been left an annuity of £lO4 a year, and he claimed that, this ought to be increased. Mr Northcroft, for the plaintiff, said that the net residue of the estate was estimated to exceed £150,000. The fund was required to be invested, and the income accumulated for ten years, and it might well be that at the end of that time it would amount to £300,000. There were 13 grandchildren. The result of the will was that, while his client was provided with an annuity of £lO4 a year, his children and nephews and nieces were having saved and accumulated for them in ten years’ time a sum of

i at least £20,000 each. His client was . completely broken in health, and was I unable to supplement his allowance I by his own earnings. He had practii cally spent his life in the service of ■ his father, and he had provided cheap ■ labour for him during the period when he accumulated this very large sum of money. In cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that on occasions his father had to reprimand him for drinking. There were occasions on which a <?6ctor had to be called in, on account of his drinking. His father had twice placed him on farms at Katikati and at Papakura. He claimed to have improved these properties by his labour. In a codicil to the will, his annual allowance had been reduced by his father from £2OO to £lO4. He would resent a proposal to take out a prohibition order as an insult. On behalf of David Bell, a brother of the plaintiff, Mr Elliott said that he was instructed to say that David Bell considered his brother had been most unjustly treated. Mr Northcroft suggested that the trouble was that the father had objected to the marriage of his son William on religious grounds. Mr Justice Blair reserved his decision.