ESTATE WORTH £467,481

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 226, 21 June 1944, Page 6

ESTATE WORTH £467,481

’ Litigation Begun In Auckland QUESTION OF DISPOSAL ißy Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, June 20.. Legal proceedings involving the disposal of a considerable portion of the . estate of the late Mrs. Marianne Caughey Preston were commenced before Mr. Jus* tice Callan today. Plaintiff was Reginald Caughey Seymour or Reginald Caughey Seymour Smith (Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., Wellington, and Dr. McElroy) who had been brought up by Mrs. Preston. Messrs. H. P. Richmond and Warnock appeared for the surviving trustees of Mrs. Preston’s estate, S. J. Barry, company secretary, and W. J. Mains, retired warehouseman. Mr. J. Stanton appeared for the' committee of the Caughey Smith Preston Memorial Interdenominational Evangelization Fund. , . There were two applications beiore the Court. The first was a summons by the trustees for the consent of the Court to distribute certain portions of the estate and to call upon plaintiff to make any claim within, a certain time. The second was a claim on the estate hleu by plaintiff under the Family Protection Act. It was agreed to hear both matters together. , „ . , Affidavits before the Court showed that the final balance of the estate left bv Mrs. Preston at her death on September 1,. 1938, was £467,481. As Miss Caughey, she was first married to. the * late William Henry Smith, one of the founders of the firm of Smith and Caughey, Limited, in 1874, and he died in Auckland on August 31, 1912. In September, 1932, she married a retired clergyman, the Rev. Raymond Preston, who was now living in Sydney. The trustees of the estate expressed their belief that Mrs. Preston never gave birth to a child. In a lengthy clausj in her will leaving £lOO to plaintiff under ' 'certain strict conditions, Mrs. Preston referred to plaintiff as ‘‘Reginald Caughey Seymour, sometimes known as Reginald Caughey Seymour Smith and who is sometimes; looked upon as my adopted son, ' but is not my adopted son.” A clause permitted the trustees to transfer the sum if £lOOO or part of it to him when he attained the age of 25, provided his conduct was “upright, diligent and satis- ' 'factory” and added that the testatrix intended to increase this, dependent upon ’ the manner in which he conducted him- ' Self. No further provision was made for plaintiff, the trustees stated, and the sum of £lOO was paid to him in Decern- ; her. 1940. t , • ‘ Mr. O’Leary said that the bequest of £lOO was apparently made to humilitate . this young man. The provisions of the will included a. bequest of £15,000 to provide an annual income of £lOOO to the widower, Mr. Preston. The pre- . sent value of the residue of the estate was about £300,000.’ , • Th:’ first question for the Court to deJcrmine, counsel continued, was whether Waintiff was the son of testatrix. There might be the further question whether .. there was any presumption as to childbearing in respect of a woman 53 years of age.' An affidavit filed by plaintiff was read .to the Court by Mr. O’Leary. In this he stated his belief that he was born in England on July.. 30, about 36 years ago, ■when testatrix and her first husband, William Henry Smith, were in England. He . returned to New Zealand with his parents as a babe in arms. When he was five years old his father died and deponent recalled that just before his death his father said, “I am going away soon and I want you to look after your Jnothe'r. when I’m gone.” Testatrix sent him to King’s College, but took him away 'when he was about 17 and was anxious to study as a doctor, as a’cousin had done: When he protested about being taken from school, she said : “If you come home and look after- me, you will never need to work. I will provide for you.” Testatrix was extremely critical of his smoking or going to pictures and made life very difficult fdr him. The hearing eyas adjourned.