SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16510, 22 August 1921, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS

A FAMILY DISPUTE. The civil sittings of the Supreme Court were continued before his Honor [ Mr Justice Herdman to-day. Thomas Bell Howson, of Taumutu, 1 near Lake Ellesmere, farmer, sued Benjamin Roper Howson, farmer, and j William Scott, both of- South bridge, as executors and trustees*of the will of the late Thomas Bell Howson. of Sedgemere, near Southbridge. Plaintiff is the eldest son of the late Thomas Bell Howson, who died on August 4, 1920. Plaintiff claimed that when he was married his father agreed to employ him on the farm as general manager, and that he occupied the position for ten years until his father’s deatly. He claimed against, the estate for the balance of wages, the total i claim being £ll9B 3s Id. Defendants conn fez-claimed for £283 11s Gd, wages alleged to be overpaid. Mr O. T. J. Alpers, with him Mr \V. H. Lascelles, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A. C. I Frvor for defendants, j Mr Lascelles said that deecased’s farms covered in area 1200 acreß. and were stock farms, carrying mainly sheep, cat tie and pigs. When Thomas Howson married, the father agreed to pay him the ruling wages, but held a portion for him, agreeing to pay interest on the sum held. The action was to recover the wages that had not been paid by the father. There were three brothers. Thomas was head stockman, attending to drafting the stock, tailing, shearing, crutching and sc on. The second son, Benjamin, was a teamster, and the third son, Arnold, was a general farm hand. During the j ten years Thomas had occupied the , position of manager ho received from his father £936 2s. The father was a dominating old man, and kept a careful check of all expenditure It was v. large, rich estate The trustees proposed to give Thomas 30s a week He claimed £3 a week for the five vears from 1910 to 1915. and £4 a week'from : 1915 to 1920 The two other sons had received the lion’s share. Thomas’s children received £3OOO form the estate. and Thomas had an annuity in the sum, receiving £l5O a year from it. That was all his sharft from tho rich j estate. ! Mr Alpers said that there were three | farms in the estate, which was sworn j for probate at £38.000. There were j nine children. Six daughters rej oeived £6OO each, and Benjamin and 1 Arnold were given the three farms, i they to be tenants in common. Mr Fryer said that the estate was proved at £38,000, but. the duties reduced the value to £34,000. The two 3 7 ounger sons received about £15,000 each, but the death duties reduced it to about £12,000 each. » His Honor: And this man received only a life interest in £3OOO. * Plaintiff said that his father was vig- | orous until lie died, when he was eighty-two years of age, and always was the boss on the farm. Plaintiff had had the free use of an old cottage

at Sedgmerer but he was not kept. He had four children, and about 200 acres on the farms were cropped, but mostly stock ivere raised. Witness, in addition to attending to the stock, helped «ith stocking and other harvest work. He had had only 01m bonus at harvest time, of £5. He usually drew wages when he wished by obtaining cheques from his father. Ho arranged with his father to be paid the ruling wages, not 30s a week, as defendants claimed. , To Mr Fryer: Witness’s father gave him £25 on witness’s marriage, anti he was given the free use of a house that was condemned by the Health Department. Later, he tvas given tho free use of a better house,. with seven acres, on another farm. He never was manager for his father, but attended to the cattle, sheep and pigs. However, during the ten years, he asked his father for a statement of accounts. A n nie Howson, wife of the previous witness, said that he worked on the farms from dawn to dark. During tho scarcity of labour she helped with tho sheep and other stock, at the father’s request.

George Thompson Mulcook, farmer, Ha [swell, said that when he, in 1910, employed a married couple on a farm or. Banks Peninsula, he paid that mail £llO a year, with a bonus of £lO a year, and gave them the use of a small cottage. The wife did nothing. Plaintiff would be worth £l3O to £l4O a year from 1910 to 1915, and £IBO to» £l9O a year from 1915 to 1920. \\ illiam Henry Nicholson, secretary of the Canterbury Sheepfarmers' Union, said That a married couple shepherd v ho did the class of work plaintiff had done in 1910 would have been paid £9O to £IOO a year and found, in 191(3 £l2O to £l3O and found, in 1920 £l5O to £l6O and found. Tho cost of finding the man in 1920 would be about £1 a week. James Charles Free, stock agent, chairman of the Southbridge Town Board, said that Thomas Howson had more responsibility on the farm than the other brothers had. Thomas Howson saved his father large sums by taking a personal interest in the farm. John Harwood, bushman, Southbridge, said that he had worked on one ot the* farms as ‘' rouse-abput ” for £2 a week and found, and extra for overtime at harvest. Thomas Howson worked harder than anybody else on the; place. (Proceeding.) 1