WILL NOT VARIED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 13 December 1938, Page 10

WILL NOT VARIED

ROBERT BELL ESTATE SON'S APPLICATION REFUSED (United Prera A*Hociartonl CHRISTCHURCH. 12th December. Holding that no case could be made out that would justify any disturbance of the will. Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court to-day refused the application of Robert Brown Bell for an increased share of the £70.000 estate of his father, the late Robert Bell, newspaper propretor. of Christchurch. Costs were refused to the plaintiff. ‘"The testator made provision for his widow by establishing an annuity fund, which will eventually fall into the residue of his estate for the benefit ot his grandchildren, including the children of the plaintiff." said his Honour. "Substantial bequests were made to charities; two other surviving sons of the testator received approximately £14.500 each. The only daughter was given a life interest in a slightly-larger amount, with the remainder to her children. The plaintiff received specific assets of tne value of £2OOO. In the result, the plaintiff is left with an unearned income of between £2OO and £3OO per annum. and including his legacy, capital of upwards of £4OOO. In addition he is still able to earn an income to supplement that which he will derive from his capital investments. In these circumstances I am called upon to decide whether the testator has failed to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance of the plaintiff. In my opinion he has not. There is certainly a marked disparity between the testamentary gifts of over £14.000 to other children and of £2OOO to the plaintiff. In so far as the plaintiff can be considered a potential dependant of the testator, his circumstances entitled the testator to expect that his own resources were adequate for his proper maintenance. For that reason alone I would be bound to Hold that no case

I had been made out which would justify | j any disturbance of the testator’s disposi- j I tions of his estate.

"I think it proper to say that I do j not think the ease docs rest there. It j is true that the plaintiff was a loyal j and zealous assistant to his father in j the latter's business, and deserved to ■ be treated generously. But so. I think. 1 he was treated. Some twelve years be- i fore his death his father gave to the plaintiff over £IO.OOO. notwithstanding 1 a recent quarrel. He added a further j £2OOO to this by his will. I am not persuaded that the plaintiff has made out any case either of injustice or I failure by the deceased to make adequate provision for his proper maini tenance and support." Although the plaintiff had failed. Mr L. J. Hensley asked for costs on his behalf. In previous cases, he said, the ; size of the estate had been taken into i consideration on this question. "I do , not consider that the plaintiff is entitled | to costs.” said his Honour. He was ! aware, he added, that the Courts had . allowed costs to unsuccessful plaintiffs ' in some similar cases, but these were I cases in which the plaintiff was justified , in bringing the petition, although the ! Court did not see fit to vary the will, or ! cases in which the plaintiff was impov- ! erished and could not have proceeded i but for expectations out of the estate, j "In this case, however, the plaintiff is a man of business experience, and of ripe judgment, or he should be.” said his Honour. He should have been able to assess his case, but he proceeded under a sense of grievance.” Brief reference to the decision was made in yesterday's issue of "The Mail ” I