COURT NEWS

Grey River Argus, 10 December 1938, Page 14

COURT NEWS

APPEAL COURT SITTINGS. i WELLINGTON, December 8. The Second Division of Ai t -eal Court will sit at Wellington on 13th, 1939. The First of the Court sit on June 12th, 1939, and the Second Division will hold a further sitting commencing on September 11th, 1939, according to a notice appearing in to-night’s gazette. DUAL VOTER COMMITTED. NEW PLYMOUTH, 8. A New Plymouth elector, Percy Allen, a labourer, appeared in 4 the Magistrate’s Court to-day charged with dual voting in the election on October 15. He pleaded not. guilty and was committed for trial. Accused, in a statement to the police, said he was drinking heavily all the day before the election, and again on the morning of election day, and had no j-ecollection of voting twice, or whether he had voted at all The rest, of the day was a blank to him. The returning officer gave evidence that votes in Alien’s name were recorded at two booths, and this evidence was supported by that of the poll clerks. CHRISTCHURCH, December 9. Further addresses by counsel were heard in the Supreme Court to-day in the action in which Robert Brown Bell claimed a larger share in the estate of his late father, Robert Bell. In 1926, said Mr Thomas, plaintiff’s income was £l,lBl, and in the following years £1,763, £1,631, £1,591, £1,476, £1,506, £1,426, £l3ll, £1,306, dropping in 1935, when he relinquished a directorship of the “Ashburton Guardian’’ to £B7l. Over these years his average annual income was £1,406, and from 1926 to the date of his father’s death it was £1,225. “At the time of his father’s death,’’ Mr Justice Northcroft, pointed out, “it had shrunk to between £2OO and £3oo.’’ ,Mr Thomas suggested that the father in making his will was entitled to take into consideration that Robert had enjoyed a four-figure income for years. It was significant that plaintiff used part of the “Timaru Post” proceeds to clear off his debts.' Yet since 1925, he had gone back into debt £4,480, showing his spending had exceeded his income by over £3OO a year, besides the capital remaining from the “Post” deal.

In answer to the Judge, Mr Thomas said that the father was entitled to believe, at his death, that Robert was well off. The Court Was entitled to take Robert’s expenditure into account, and decline to hand over a lump sum to a spendthrift. In answer to a further question by the Judge, Mr Thomas said he would invite the Court to infer from plaintiff’s lack of candour that' his present position was not as desperate as he made out. At August, 1937, plaintiff had a balance of assets over liabilities totalling £5,503. His son had an interest of £l,BOO in his uncle’s estate. Plaintiff’s trouble was, said Mr Thomas, that he was suffering from self pity, and a sense' of grievance against his father and other members of the family.' He had big ideas apparently, about tho sort of job -that was worthy of his attention.' The real position was that plaintiff had been a good son, and his father want-