CLAIM BY SON

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 9 December 1938, Page 6

CLAIM BY SON

LARGER SHARE OF FATHER’S ESTATE FURTHER ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL [United Press Association j CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. 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, newspaper proprietor of Christchurch. The estate is worth over £70,000. Defendants were the Perpetual Trustees I Estate and Agency Co., Ltd., executors of the will, and the beneficiaries. In 1926, said Mr C. S. Thomas, for William Bell, a beneficiary, plaintiff’s income was £llßl and in the following years £1763, £1631 £1592, £1476, £1506. £1426, £l3ll, £1306, dropping in 1935, when he relinquished his directorship of the Ashburton “Guardian” to £B7l. Over these years his average annual income was £1406, and from 1926 to the date of his father’s death it was £1225. “At the time of his father’s death,” Mr Justice Northcroft pointed out, “it had shrunk to between £2OO and £300.” 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, said Mr Thomas, that plaintiff used part of the Timaru “Post” proceeds to clear off his debts, yet since 1925 he had gone back into debt £4480, showing his spending had exceeded his income by over £3OO a year, besides capital remaining from the “Post” deal.

In answer to his Honour, 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 his Honour. 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 £5503. and his son had an interest of £IBOO in his uncle’s estate. Plaintiff’s trouble was, said Mr Thomas. that he was suffering from selfpity and a sense of grievance against, his father and other members of the family. He had big ideas apparently about the sort of job that was worthy of his attention. The real position was that plaintiff had been a good son and his father wanted to see him fill his shoes. With the £2097 left to him in Pis father’s will plaintiff had received from his father £12,427 as against £ 14.484 that the other brothers received Although they received some £2OOO more plaintiff had been receiving a large income over many years. The case is proceeding. (An earlier message will be found I elsewhere in this issue).

Messrs Levin and Co., Limited, have received the following cable from their London agents, dated 7th December, 1938. "The auctions closed here to-day with good general competition, although there was rather an easier tendency for inferior descriptions. The total quantity offered was 104,219 bales; sold 85,500 hales; carried forward 51,000 including 16.500 from New Zealand. Compared with the opening rates, we quote:—Greasy merino, best, unchanged; average, £d per I 11> lower; lino hnlfbreds, 50 561 b, unchanged ; extra fine crossbreds, 48/501 b, id per lb lower; fine crossbreds, 46/481 b, ,'d per Hi lower; medium crossbreds, 44/ 461 b, id per lb lower; coarse crossbreds, JO 441 b, J.l per lb lower . low crossbreds, 36/401b, id per lb lower; slipc wools gen-