FAMILY IN COURT TO SETTLE DISPUTE OVER MONEY LENT

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7296, 5 August 1930, Page 4

FAMILY IN COURT TO SETTLE DISPUTE OVER MONEY LENT

Decision Reserved In tho Palmerston North Supremo Court yesterday, the Hon. Mr. Justice BJair heard concluding evidence in the case commenced last Jfriday, in which Albert Joseph Eising, clerk, of- Palmerston North (Mr. Qugley), askod, that his brother Chas. John Eising, farmer, of Mangahao, (Mr. Cooper), bo ordered to repay to tho. Eising estate, £950 which was received by him from the trustees, prior to defendant’s appointment as .a trustee. Defondant, in continuation of _ his evidence, said that when ho received tho £950 from tho bank he know that his mother was selling tho wool. To Mr. Ongloy: The money was not altogether a gift nor was it a loaq. He .would say that it was a part of Ins share of tho estate. At the samo time he felt, as though he had a claim against 'the estate for about £SOO but did not say anything to the other two trustees until they told him the deed of family arrangements was a washout-.” He did not intend to claim for tho £SOO if tho family arrangement was carried out and if the deed was to be cancelled, then first he must have the £450 which he had substituted for his claim of £SOO. It was not true when his mother said in evidence that she told him on his return to New Zealand that the estate was divided equally between the children. It was three years after ho came home that ho first saw his father’s will. She had told him that the farm was to bo left to his brother Bill and himself with certain grants to the others. Eor two or three years he and his mother and brothers got on well together. It was the last year that the trouble between them commenced. He was at once dissatisfied when he learnt tho real conditions of the will. He wanted to get out on liis own and what hurt him greatly was the fact that £SOO or £OOO was being spent on plaintiff’s education. He wanted to have a look at a block of land at I'catkerston but his mother said -lie could treat him better than ‘‘Bill Massey.” Ho had never made a demand upon his mother that ho was to have a car the same as his brother Bill He had worked out figures on paper based on the selling of a portion of the estate and the , purchase of another place so that he and Bill could be apart. The money then would still be in the estate and there would be no friction. Ho never presented these ideas to his mother in the form of a- demand; The paper.ho, put in his pocket and she must have got it from there. His-Honour: What is tho purpose of writing all this if you did not give it to someone. Witness: I put it in my pocket and decided to sit quiet. - Witness added that he never suggested at any time, that ho should have the running of the estate. If he . did not go then his brother Bill would have to go, not liis mother. His Honour: If the position for you was unbearable at home, why didn’t you ask for your £SOO and walk off'? Witness: I knew I couldn’t get it. _ His Honour: But why did you ask for nearly twice that amount? Why didn’t' you take your £SOO and go? Witness: It was newer offered me. His Honour: They say you were making such a lot of trouble that they wanted to get rid of you and it cost them double to do that. To Mr. Cooper: His mother seemed to have misunderstood the will right up to the time of the deed of family arrangement, which was two years after he came back. During those two years he worked without wages because he was under the impression he would ultimately beneiit. His brother and he could not agree as to tho working of he farm, so witness went off on to his own place. Henry McShcrry, solicitor, of Paliiatua, told the Court of the conference between defendant' and the rest of the family, in which the financial state of affairs between the parties was arrived it. This concluded the evidence. His Honour remarked that there seemed not the slightest doubt that the £950 was estate money, but defendant’s counsel had raised tho point that recovery could not bo made in the present proceedings—that another method would have to be employed. Defendant had adopted the attitude that, being the eldest son, ho could dictate and give orders, overlooking the fact that he had no interest in the estate till his mother’s death. Somehow or other .lie had managed to get hold of £950. “My point of view is that he made such a nuisance of himself that they decided to get rid of him by hook or by crook,” observed his Honour. Mr. Cooper submitted that notwithstanding these facts, the legal position was that the money had been advanced to defendant before he became a trustee. The only claim plaintiff had was against the other two trustees (his mother and brother) for breach of trust and then, it was for those two trusteesi to get the money back from defendant. Decision on tho legal point was reserved.