SON LEFT £2 A WEEK FROM £344,000 ESTATE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6869, 26 March 1929, Page 6

SON LEFT £2 A WEEK FROM £344,000 ESTATE

Claim for Increase PLAINTIFF ADMITS BEING REPROVED FOR DRINKING SONS AND NEPHEWS WEALTHS Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Last Night. The estate of the late Alexander Bell runholder, of Auckland, which at the most recent computation has been valued at £314,000, was the subject of legal claim by ono of the sons, William Bell, in tho Supremo Court to-clay. Plaintiff had been left annuity of £lO4 a year and he claimed this ought to bo increased. Mr. Northeroft for plaintiff, said the net residue of the estate -was estimated to exceed £150,000. The fund was required to be invested and tho_ income accumulated for 10 years and it .\ight 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 a fund which would provide for them in 10 years time, the sum of at least £20,000 each. His client was completely broken in health and unable to supplement his allowance by his own earnings. He had practically spent his life in the service of his father and had provided cheap labour for him during the period he accumulated this very largo sum of money. . , . In the cross-examination, _ plaintiff admitted that on occasions his father had had to reprimand him for drinking. There wero occasions on which s doctor had to be called in on account of his drinking. His father had twice placed him on farms at Katikati and at Papakura. Ho 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 plaintiff, Mr Elliott said he was instructed to say that David Bell considered his brother had been most unjustly treated. Mr. Northeroft that the trouble was that tho father had objected to tho marriage of his son William on religious grounds. Mr. Justice Blair reserved Ms decision.