LOCKED-UP MILLIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 27 October 1928, Page 7

LOCKED-UP MILLIONS

AN AMAZING WILL TANGLE In the High Court recently Mr. Justice Austbury had regretfully to pronounce valid the will of a Mr. Villar, who had directed that the capital of his estate should not be distributed until the end of a period expiring twenty years after the death of the last descendants of Queen Victoria who should be living at his death. Our judges believe tha such limitations are against the best interests of both State and individual. Nevertheless, it is legal to tie up property by will during the lives of persons in being at the death of the testator and twentyone years thereafter (writes “Tit Bits” legal correspondent. )

That the will of Mr. Villar was valid is an outstanding indictment of our law. Should persons who take the trouble, to finesse with the law be-able to arrange their affaire in such a manner that, while complying with the strict letter of the law, they are flouting the intention of the law-givers?

HOARDED FOR 100 YEARS In this case a distinguishing genealogical expert, rejoicing in the title of Portcullis Pusuivant of Arms, stated that in 1920 ther were already about 120 descendants of Queen Victoria in existance Mr. Villar did not die until September 6, 1926. The significance of the word “about is important. It means that the unhappy beneficiaries must first discover exactly how many descendants were alive on September 6, 1926. This in itself will be a long and costy proceeding, as there will be the utmost difficulty in showing that certain people, such as the Czarina of Russia, granddaughter of Queen Victoria, were dead at that date. The question of the validity of a number of morganatic marriages would also arise.

Having succeeded in the first part of their task, the beneficiaries will still have to prove strictly the deaths of all the descendants living on September 6, 1926, and after the last death there is still a wait of twenty years! The distribution of the estate will be deferred at least a century. The most serious aspect of this case is the enormous wastage of money. There is one case on record in which a large estate was kept comparatively poor by the costs l of litigation to set aside the testator’s directions for tying up his property.

FETTERED FORTUNE FOLLY. Peter Thellusson was a banker ot Swiss origin born in 1737, who settled in London in 1750. His commercial mind was attracted by the possibility that his estate would amount to an enormous sum if the income were left to accumulate for a number of years—that is, if the income as well as the capita] were left untouched. Thellusson died in 1797, and left an estate of over £660,000 to be accumulated during the lives of any sons and grandchildren living at his death. On the death of the survivor of these the estate was to be distributed to any descendants then living, or, failing them, to be applied in reduction of the National Debt.

The will was challenged in the courts, but, under the law then in force, pronounced valid. An actuary calculated that the estate would have increased. to about twenty-seven millions when the time for distribution arrived. Such a vast amount of wealth in one estate was almost unthinkable in those days—besides, others might follow suit. Accordingly, Parliament passed an Act limiting the accumulation of income to a period of twenty-one years from the death of a testator. >

This rule refers only to accumulating income, not to restrictions regarding capital. The Act, known as Thellnsson’s Act, 1800, could not apply to Thellusson’s will but the testator had by his folly defeated his own ends. When the estate was finally awarded to the rightful heir in 1856 it was found that, owing to legal expenses, it was little more than the original £600,000.