ESTATE CLAIM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19808, 9 December 1938, Page 14

ESTATE CLAIM

SON SEEKS PROVISION FORTUNE OF FATHER NEWSPA1 1 E R BUSINESS PL AI NT IFF’S INCOME (‘Pur Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. Further argument was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday in the action by Robert Brown Bell against the Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency Company, Limited, as executors and the beneficiaries seeking provision out or the estate of. £70,556 left by his father, Robert Bell, newspaper proprietor, Christchurch. Mr. L. J. Hensley, who appeared with Mr. Sim for the plaintiff, suggested that certain assets should be detached - from the estate to provide for the plaintiff and that the rest be taken from the residue. Mr. C. H. Upham, for the Pertetual Trustees Company, produced the affidavit of A. C. Bretlierton who, for two years before the testator’s death, acted" as his attorney. The testator was then apparently alert and with his business ability unimpaired, but he was disappointed with his eldest

Mr. C. S. Thomas, for William Brown Witherow Bell, of Ashburton, said he found some difficulty in putting his client’s case, first because of the unusual claims made in the plaintiff’s affidavits and also because of the long period from 1903 to 1937 which they covered. The period from 1903 to 11922 was of no real importance in an understanding of the essentials of the case. Exaggeration Suggested The plaintiff, it had at once to be admitted, was a capable man, but in his affidavits he had “painted the lily.” If he had not, he was even more capable than the defendants thought and was, therefore, well able to earn his living.

The deceased was a man of outstanding ability in the newspaper world and had been president of the World Press Congress on two occasions. Many of the statements in plaintiff’s affidavits were very muc.’i

.xaggeraiea and some''were untrue. It was absurd to say, for instance, that as a ‘boy of 14 the plaintiff could have materially assisted in the establishment of the Ashburton Guardian. His sister had said that the plaintiff had over-stated the value of his assistance to his father, and a record of investments made by the testator from an early period showed that the finances of the Guardian were not in a straitened condition. From 1903 onward, all three sons actually helped ,i the business as they became old enough, and no credit was specially attachable to anyone. Earnings of Plaintiff The period from 1922 to 1937 was important to the court. There was no suggestion that, during the four years before 1922, when he was advertising manager of the Dominion that the plaintiff’s health was bad. He was then earning up to £9OO a year. In 1922 the testator offered to give (he plaintiff the Timaru Post, the managing-directorship of the Guardian and an appointment as his attorney. The plaintiff showed his income in the years from 1922 to 1925 as £1026 from salaries from the two newspapers and from his war pensionThe plaintiff also had 12,000 shares in the Timaru Post, but his affidavit was silent on the point of any other income than the £1026. Just after the Timaru Post was taken over, letters from the plaintiff to his father showed that there was no animosity between them.

In 1925 the Timaru Post was losing ground and was sold for £20,500. Until then the plaintiff was in complete control of the newspaper and that it lost ground seemed inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claim that he had by his ability made a fortune for his father. Out of the sale of the Timaru Post the plaintiff was left with a net sum of £10,330. Lack of Detail There was a lack of frankness and detail concerning the transactions and no details had yet been brought before the court. The plaintiff came out of the Timaru 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 returned dividends of £657 12s 6d to the plaintiff on his investment of £6OOO.

Mr. Thomas said the plaintiff admitted that after .1925, he was drawing a satisfactory sum and was living in a manner he considered befitted his position. He apparently was living at the rate of £ISOO a year. The plaintiff's income in 1926 on his own figures was £1066 and, to that had to be added the income from the Guardian shares and other sources. There was, for instance, £3OOO in cash residue from the Timaru Post transaction, which must have produced some income. The case was adjourned.