SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 227, 19 June 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

DEATH-BED GIFT FROM SON TO FATHER i A PECULIAR CASE In the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Hotert Stout), Lydia Caroline Williams, administratrix of the estate of Harold Cecil Williams, late of Wellington, commercial traveller, . proceeded against Harry Charles Williams, of Wellington, caretaker of the New Zealand Academy of Fine Axis, to recover a share certjficate for 50 shares in Sharland and Co., Ltd. ilr. T. Neave apearecl for the plaintiff and Mr. H. P. Ron Haast for the defendant. It was stated that Harold Cecil Williams died on November 20, 1918, and at the date of his death owned, amongst other assets, fifty preference shares in Sharland and Co., Ltd., Wellington, ot £1 each, and plaintiff asked for judgment for the possession of the said share certificate. The defendant claimed that the said shares were a gift to him, and that the said Harold Cecil Williams made the gift just prior to his death. Harry Charles Williams, the defendant, said that the plaintiff wns the wifts oi Harold C. Williams, who was his son, and the latter died of influenza on November 20, 1918. His son had been living apart from his wife, and was in November last living at Abel Smith Street. On Monday, November 18, his son sent for him and he went to the house, and they had a conversation on business matters in view of his possible death. His eon at that interview gave him the sharecertificate for the fifty shares, and hi 3 son further, made a request that an old ■watch he ovwied should bs given to his brother. Witness said that he took possession of all the assets in the estate of the deceased, but. all the effects except the share certificate were returned to the plaintiff. Lydia C. Williams, widow of the deceased and plaintiff in the case, saitt that she had been residing in Christchurch, and on her husband's death she came to Wellington and interviewed the defendant with respect to the effects ot the deceased. She had two interviews with the defendant, and at neither interview was anything said about the share certificate. She kneiv her husband poseessed the shares, but she did not specifically ask the defendant where they wero. It wns not until after the issue of the writ that she learned that the shares were claimed by the defendant as a gift. The total of the claims against the estate was ,£BB, and the assets were valued at £10.

Mr. Neave said that the case was a difficult one. The facts and circumstances were not within the knowledge of any-' bouy except the defendant, and he submitted that under the circumstances we. defendant had not discharged tho onus of proving that there had been a gift. His Honour said that, taking tho past history into consideration, the assunip. tioli would be that the deceased, not having been reconciled to his wife, would do just such a thing as mako a gift .to hie father. It was a unique case. If the parties had been in accord it would have been a different thing. Under the circumstances it appeared to be the- most thing for the deceased to have done.

' Mr. Neave,. continuing, said the only matter he could submit was that the onus of proof was on the defendant to .establish the fact that this gift was made." His.Honour: -The man had quarrelled with his wife and made tho gift to his father. .-. ■

Mr. Neave urged that if tlie : Cpurt held that there had been a gift no costs should be allowed. He pointed.out that , it was not until after the writ was issued that they learned of the gift. •":"'• The question involved in the actidn was whether the defendant could liold the share certificate for the fifty preference shares in Sharland and Co., Ltd., for wliat it was worth..- The shares had not been transferred to the defendant ill the books of tho company, ... . "His Hojioui' -reserved his decision.