SON’S EXCLUSION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21183, 5 August 1940, Page 5

SON’S EXCLUSION

ESTATE OF FARMER APPLICATION TO COURT MONEY TO CHARITIES (By Telegraph.—Special to Times) WANGANUI, Friday An application by a son to obtain a greater share in his father’s estate came before Mr Justice Blair in the Supreme Court yesterday. The action was taken under the Family Protection Act. Applicant was Peter Anderson Haggart, for whom Mr A. L. Tompkins, of Hamilton, appeared. Mr A. A. Barton (Wanganui) represented the Guardian Trust and Executors Company of New Zealand, Ltd., trustees under the will of the late Peter Haggart. Mr Ralph Brown (Wanganui) represented three infant grandchildren, who have received legacies of £7OO each under the will. Mr H. M. Keesing (Wanganui) appeared for the Wanganui Returned Soldiers’ Association, which was granted a legacy of £2OO under the will. Mr B. C. Haggitt (Wanganui) represented the Wanganui Orphanage, which is to receive a residual legacy from the estate; St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church,' which has been given a specific legacy of £IOO under the will; | and Mrs Glentworth, who obtains a specific legacy of £2OO. Disposal of Estate Mr Tompkins, outlining the facts of the case, said the testator died on October 3, 1939, aged 76. His estate amounted to £6393 Bs, which, after the payment of death duties was reduced to slightly more than £SOOO. Under a will made on September 27, 1939, a few days before his death, testator left £2IOO to three grandchildren (children of a son then dead), £2OO to the testator’s landlady at the time of his death (Mrs Glentworth), £l5O to the Wanganui City Council for upkeep of his wife’s grave, and approximately £2450 to various charities. There was no provision for his only living son. Testator, said counsel, had two sons, one of whom, who had died before his father, left home 23 years ago. That son had done nothing in accumulating the estate which the father had since disposed of under , the will now in dispute. The applicant was now 30 years of age and had had no education beyond the primary school. At his father’s request he had left school and, between the ages of 14 and 22, had worked on Lis father’s farm at Monovale, near Cambridge, which was bought in 1920—boom times. The boy did not work for wages, but received pocket-money from time to time. At the age of 22 and until he was 26 an arrangement was made with his father to receive £3 a week, but he actually did not receive it. During the last four or five years the son was a trusted manager of the farm and operated upon the bank account. That brought the matter up to the year 1936, when the son got married. It was then, counsel said, that the testator’s attitude towards his son changed. Three Successive Wills j Mr Tompkins detailed three successive wills made by the testator. The first was in 1926, under which all was left to the son, the applicant in the present action, anw nothing to charities. ! In July, 1936, just after the Mono- | vale farm was sold, without the son | being consulted, a will was made ! which directed that £l5O be paid out 1 of the estate for the upkeep of tesI tator’s wife’s grave, and £SOO to a | housemaid in the boarding-house in j which the testator was staying. The | son then was left only a life interest ! in a farm bought at Ngaruawahia j since the Monovale property had been sold, and the whole of the residue of the estate was left to the orphanage at Wanganui, after termination of the life interest. It was submitted by counsel that that life interest was a very small one, in that the Ngaruawahia property was mortgaged. In October, 1936, counsel continued ! testator made a third will, in which he left only £SO to the son, £2OOO to equally divided among all his grandj children living at the time of his death on their attaining the age of j 21, and various gifts to charities. Paid All Outgoings ! Counsel said that the son was put on to the Ngaruawahia farm as a manager on terms that he had to pay ! all the outgoings, including interest.

The father then apparently had decided to treat his son as a stranger, during the time the son was on the Ngaruawahia property he received £2OO remuneration. He left the property. The son at present had a position as a farm labourer at £3 12s 6d a week and a free house. He had three children—2£ years, 1J years, and 1 month. Submissions By Counsel Mr Brown said that he felt nothing would be done to disturb the legacies of the grandchildren. His Honour intimated that it was in his mind not to disturb these. Mr Haggitt asked that application be dismissed, on the ground that the applicant was 30 years of age, was in employment, and was able bodied. Mr Keesing submitted that the various wills made by the testator showed that he was aware of what he was doing. His Honour, intimating that he intended to reserve his decision, asked if any representations were to be made to him as to the relative merits of the various charities. Mr Barton made a suggestion that if any change made by His Honour in favour of the son, the legacies of the grandchildren be left undisturbed, also the amount for upkeep of the grave and that the amounts bequeathed to charities be reduced pro rata by the amount it was intended to give the son.