SHARE OF FATHER’S ESTATE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 9 December 1938, Page 9

SHARE OF FATHER’S ESTATE

CLAIM BY ELDEST SON FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD i bulled Preae Adeociai ion * CHRISTCHURCH, Bth December. Claiming a share in the estate of his late father, Robert Bell, newspaper proprietor, Christchurch, eldest son of the i late Robert Brown Bell, continued his ! | proceedings in the Supreme Court to-day : | against the Perpetual Trustees Estate t and Agency Co., Ltd., executors of the ; will, and beneficiaries. Mr L. J. Hensley, who appeared with} Mi Sim for plaintiff, suggested that cer-! tain assets be detached from the estate ; t j provide for plaintiff and that the rest 1 bt taken from the residue. Mr C. 11. I’pham, for the Perpetual trustees Company, produced an affidavit J ot A. C. Bretherton, who lor two years before testator’s death acted as Ins at- [ | torney. Testator v.as then apparently ’ alert and with business ability unimpair. 1 led, but was disappointed with bis eldest Mr S. C. Thomas, for William Brown | Wit hero w Beil, Ashburton, said he found some difficulty in putting his client's i oase, first because of the unusual claims ; made in plaintiff’s affidavits and also be-‘ i cause of the long period, from 1933 to : 1337, which they covered. Ihe period | from 1903 to 1922 was of no real impoiti a nee in an understanding of the essentials | o' tile case. Plaintiff, it had at once to i be admitted, was a capable man, but in! j liis affidavits lie had painted the lily. If he. had not, he was even more capable ; i than defendants thought, and was there- ' fora well able to earn his living. Deceas- j e l was a man oi outstanding ability in j tlic newspaper world, and had been pre- j sident of the World Press Congress on j Many of the statements in plaintiff’s affidavits were very much exaggerated,! and some were untrue. It was absurd to say, for instance, that as a boy of 14 I piamliu could have materially assisted 1 in the establishment of the ‘ Ashburton Guardiau.” His sister said that plaintiff bad overstated the value of Ins assistance lo his father, and a record of investments made by testator from au 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 i ttachable to anyone. The period from 1922 to 1937 was important to the Court. There was no sug. gestion during the four years before 1322, when he was advertising manager of ‘‘The Dominion,” that plaintiff’s health was bad. In 1922 testator offered t » give plaintiff the “Tiinaru Post,” the managing directorship of the “Guaidiau” and au appointment as his attorney. Plaintiff showed his income in the years from 1922 to 1920 as £1026 a yeai ‘from salaries from the two newspapers and from a war pension. Plaiutitf also had 12,000 shares in the ‘‘Tiinaru Post" but In a affidavit was silent on the point of any other income than the £1026. SALE OF NEWSPAPER Just alter the “limaru Post’ was taken over, letters from plaintiff to his father showed that there was no anim >sity between them. In 1925 the “1 iniaiu Post” was losing ground and was) sold for £20,500. Till then plaintiff was , i i complete control of the newspaper and ; that it lost ground seemed inconsistent with plaintiff s claim that he had, l>y his ability, made a fortune for his lath-! Gut of the sale of the ‘'Tiinaru Post,” 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. Plaintiff came out of the ‘Post’’ transaction with about £9OOO in cash. He put £6OOO 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 return o « dividends of £657 12s 6d to plaintiff on his investment of £6OOO. Mr Thomas said plaintiff admitted that after 1925 ho was drawing a satisfactory sum and was living in a manner be considered befitted las position. He apparently was living at a rate of £ISOO a year. Plaintiff’s income in 1926, ou his own figures, was £1066 and to that had V: be added income from “Guardian” shares and other sources. There was, for instance, £3OOO in cash, residue from the “Post” transaction, which must have pro- ! duced some income, j The case was adjourned.