HARSH TREATMENT OF SON

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 696, 22 June 1929, Page 1

HARSH TREATMENT OF SON

Wealthy Father’s Estate COURT INCREASES ANNUITY THIS enormously wealthy man certainly was not extravagant toward his sons; indeed, it might well he said that he overworked and greatly underpaid them . . . there is nothing to justify the harsh treatment of this son in comparison with other members of the family.” These pointed comments were made in a reserved judgment in the Supreme Court today by Mr. Justice Blair in increasing the annuity of William Bell, an Auckland farmer, from £lO4 to £SOO, payable out of the estate of his father, Alexander Bell, an Auckland farmer, who left an estate of £340,000. The award was made in accordance with an application under the Family Protection Act.

“TT is estimated that after legacies and annuities were provided for. when the residue of the estate was divided up in ten years it would amount to £150,000, and each grandchild should receive approximately £20,000,” declared his Honour. The judge said the testator’s widow had an annuity of £I,OOO, and he was informed she was applying for further provision. Two married daughters received £ 500 each, and two other daughters received £IO,OOO and £20,000, respectively. In the original will plaintiff was given an annuity of £2OO, and the wife £IOO, but by a codicil the son’s grant was reduced to £lO4 per annum, and the wife’s revoked. In a further codicil testator bequeathed £ 500 to each of his grandchildren except plaintiff’s sons. The medical evidence showed that plaintiff was unable to compete on equal terms with men his own age. The son apparently worked many years for small wages for his father at Katikati. When this property was sold the father as some acknowledgment of the son’s work used about a quarter of the profits to buy a Papakura place, which the son subsequently lost through the mortgagee foreclosing. The widow of another son, Robert, who had received no other assistance from his father than a rent-free property at Tauranga, had been sent £2O per annum by her husband’s father. Another son, David, who had been promised by his father a large property at Feilding, had never had this fulfilled. “These instances afford illumination as to the testator’s ideas

of duty to his family.” commented lu Honour. Many farmers were feeling the financial pinch when plaintiff los the Papakura property and Ids father even turned him off :m adjoining pro perty he owned. “One could have imagined that when the son became ill and had to receive medical attention, his wealthy father could have done more than leave him in the public hospitals, which are no l intended to he filled by persons wfiican easily afford private nursing ana attention. I mention this fact as som« further indication of the mentality oi the testator and his ideas of his duty toward his family and the State/* pro ceeded his Honour.

It is admitted that plaintiff had been addicted to drinking. It is to be remembered that as a young man h* more or less slaved for his father, and saved all the money he could, and it may be that, when he found himself in middle-age with little or no prospects and a father with more money than he could possibly know what to do with, who was most active nevertheless in strict observance of his rights as financier. There may be some excuse for indulgence in what to some persons ifoolishly looked upon as a help to for get their troubles. Colour was also lent to the suggestion, said his Honour, that the cause of the father’s differential treatment to his son was based, on the religion of his wife.

In increasing the annuity to plaintiff to £SOO, his Honour provided that if the money’ was misspent on excessive drinking, the grant should be paid to trustees for plaintiff’s maintenance.