TRIP AND A FORTUNE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 517, 21 November 1928, Page 1

TRIP AND A FORTUNE

CLAIM AGAINST FATHER’S ESTATE WEALTHY FAMILY’S DISPUTE (Special to THE SUN) CHRISTCHURCH. To-day. A dispute involving the members of a well-known family of New Zealand landowners was heard by Mr. Justice Adams in the Supreme Court to-day, when Herbert William Acton-Adams, of North Canterbury, sought to recover from the executors of his father’s estate the sum of £1,500. The sum represented the balance of expenses incurred in a trip to England, made, it was said, in 1921, when the late Mr. William Acton-Adams asked that the plaintiff, his wife, daughter, and son, should visit him, as he was very ill. The defendant executors were Reginald L. Acton-Williams, William M. Acton-Adams, Lonald S. Murchison, and Cecil C. M. Ollivier. Plaintiff asked for a declaration that he was entitled to a division of the estate of his l%te father without any deduction 1 on account of the debt of £1,500 claimed by the trustees. The plaintiff is the eldest son, and his father, who died in 1924, left a large estate. In his statement of claim, the plaintiff said that Mr. C. C. M. Ollivier, attorney in New Zealand for William Acton-Adams, provided for the plaintiff the sum of £2,500 out of money belonging to his client. Plaintiff and his family were affectionately received by William Acton-Adams, who instructed his accountant in New Zealand to allow plaintiff only £I,OOO on account of the expense. The trustees debited plaintiff with the sum of £2,500, but credited plaintiff with £I,OOO. The expenses .exceeded £2,500, and plaintiff had to appoint a manager on the Tipapa property. The defence was that the sum of £ 2,500 # was lent as provided by Mr. Ollivier, who had no authority to make a gift to the plaintiff, whose liability to repay the sum of £1,500 remained. Mr. M. J. Gresson, with him Mr. H. D. Van Asch, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. T. Lonnelly, with him Mr. M. J. Burns, for the defendants. Mr. Lonnelly remarked that the estate had been valued at £460,000. In the course of evidence, it was stated that plaintiff received £150,000 cash under his father’s will, which was more than the other two sons received. His Honor said the plaintiff’s claim must bo based upon contract. Judgment would be reserved.