LARGER SHARE WANTED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21216, 10 December 1938, Page 7

LARGER SHARE WANTED

Estate of Newspaper Proprietor Claim By Eldest Son By Telegraph—Press Association CHRISTCHURCH, December 9. The case in which Robert Brown Bell, journalist (W. J. Sim and L. J. Hensley) is claiming a larger share of the estate of his late father, Robert Bell, newspaper proprietor, of Christchurc' , was continued in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Northcroft today. The defendants are: The Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency Company, Limited (Mr C. H. Upham), executors of the will, and the beneficiaries. These are William Brown Witherow Bell (Mr C .S. Thomas), Harold George Bell (Mr L. K. Munro), Mary Bruce Spencer (Mr A. K. North), Bruce George Spencer, Mary Bell Spencer, Rewa Spencer, and Muriel Spencer (Mr R. J. Loughnan), children of the previous defendant; several other grandchildren (including those of plaintiff), for whom Mr A. W. Brown appeared, . nd the Board of Governors of Canterbury College, and the Board of Governors of the Ashburton High School (Mr F. W. Cowlishaw). A statement prepared by R. T. Tosswill, public accountant, detailing the “Timaru Post” transaction, was put in by Mr Upham. This showed, said Mr Upham, a capital loss to deceased of £13,000, plaintiff receiving £10,330 when the “Post” was sold. Details of Plaintiff’s Income Mr Thomas pointed out that had his father pressed for the money to which he was entitled, plaintiff would have received nothing. In not giving the defence, plaintiff’s, income tax returns, Mr Thomas complained plaintiff’s counsel was withholding information to which the defence /as entitled. In 1926, said Mr Thomas, plaintiff’s income was £llBl, and in the following years £1763, £1631, £1591, £1476, £1506, £1426, £l3ll and £1306, dropping in 1935, when he relinquished the 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,” his Honour 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 Rob r'; had enjoyed a four-figure income for years. It was significant, said Mr Thomas, that plaintiff used part of the “Post” proceeds to clear off his debts, yet since 1925 he had gone back into debt, £4480, showing that his spending had exceeded his Income by over £3OO a year, besides the capital remaining from the “Post” deal. “Lived Beyond Means” 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 ’ i take Robert’s expenditure into account and declined to hand over a lump s’ i to a spendthrift. Figures showed, Mr Thomas claimed, that plaintiff was not only adequately but generously paid for his services to his father. For two years prior to his father's death plaintiff had lived beyond his means on his expectations. The whole outlook of plaintiff was wrong. He had spent regardless of his share of his father's estate. In answer to further questions by his Honour, Mr Thomas said that he invited 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. His son had an interest of £lBOO in his uncle’s estate. Suffering from Self-Pity Interrupting .when Mr Thomas, who was complaining that the financial position of the plaintiff’s wife had not been disclosed, Mr Sim said that this information had been given to the trustee.

Plaintiff was not entitled to refuse a job, said Mr Thomas, and then cry, "I’m broke. My father’s estate must keep me.” If he had even the opportunity of a senior reporter’s position he should take it.

Mr Sim had stressed the fact that tt of the other brothers suffered illhealth, but one was earning about £BOO a year and the other about £lOOO a year. Plaintiff’s trouble'was, said Mr Thomas, that he was suffering from self-pity, and a sense of grievance against his father and other membe-s of the family. He had big ideas, apparently, about the sort of job that was worthy of his attc ition. The words of the testator to the trustee were that he was dividing his estate evenly, making allowance for the benefits already conferred on Robert. The real position was .said Mr Thomas .that plaintiff had been a good son and his father wanted to see him fill his shoes. With the £2097 left to him in his father’s will, plaintiff had received from his father £12,427, as against £14,484 that the other brothers had received. Although they had received some £2OOO more, plaintiff had been receiving a large income over many years. Wise and Just Father In view of the financial positions of the various children, and the previous benefactions to Robert, the testator had acted as a wise and just father, said Mr Munro. The claims of a son who had received and dissipated his patrimony could not stand .gainst those of other children, who had waited for their share until their father’s death. When the father made his will he bore in mind that he had already provided, during his lifetime, for plaintiff. ,ie was justified in believing that plaintiff was still possessed of the assets that had been given to him. Plaintiff was not in the position of a son who had given gratuitous service. He had been well paid. The Court should also consider plaintiff’s present financial position, including the legacy he received under the will .and his ability as a journalist, which would enable him to earn a good living. The directors did not say that plaintiff was unable, by reason of his bad health, to work. Before he “Guardian” split,” Mr Munro pointed

out, there was something' at issue between the father and son of which nothing had been revealed. Three points to be remembered were that testator was conscious of having conferred great benefits on plaintiff to the exclusion of the other children; that plaintiff himself knew that what he had received in 1925 would be taken into consideration by his father when making his will; and that what he received in 1925 was a gift, as his service had been amply rewarded by a handsome salary. Mr Munro drew attention to the fact that the Court would have known nothing of the large dividends plaintiff had received after 1925 but for . arold’s affidavit. There were other gross Inaccuracies from which the Court would be justified in deducing that plaintiff had not yet revealed the whole truth. Income Over Ten Years From 1926 to 1936, said Mr Munro, plaintiff received, as a result of his father’s benefactions, £10,230 out of the “Post” transaction, £3043 in dividends from the “Guardian” and £1392 from the Grey Valley coalmines, a total of £14,765. Although the son was no doubt an industrious assistant to his father, there was no evidence to show that the father’s fortune grew out of the “Ashburton Guardian.” Affidavits showed the magnitude of the father’s financial dealings outside the newspaper industry. Some account should also be taken of the financial position of plaintiff’s children, who received considerable benefactions under their uncle’s will, as well as under the will now in dispute. Touching on the financial position of Harold George Bell, Mr Munro raid that he had a good war record and was suffering from the effects of service overseas, and his principal source of income was his salary. Unusual Case Plaintiff’s claim broke new gro-.—id, said Mr Munro. There was no case reported that resembled it. In asking for £lO,OOO, plaintiff was asking for a double share. In coming to the Court, said Mr North, plaintiff undertook to show that his father had failed in his duty to him and had failed to make proper provision for him. The story of plaintiff’s life had been dramatised by Mr Sim, but cold examination of the voluminous facts showed that plaintiff’s caes was in truth not as it had been represented.