Two Brothers Take Dispute to Court

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 752, 27 August 1929, Page 9

Two Brothers Take Dispute to Court

WELL-KNOWN FAMILY DECEASED FATHER'S ESTATE A brothers’ dispute over the proceeds of the sale of a farm, said to be part of their father’s estate, was ventilated before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court today when the affairs of a wellknown Auckland family were ventilated. The central figure was Hallyburton Johnstone, a well-known Point Chevalier resident. As trustee of the will of his father. Captain John Campbell Johnstone, who died in 1882, he sought to recover from his brother, Campbell Johnstone, his share of a property at Raglan, sold for £2OO in 1914. amounting to £33 6s Sd and interest- Judgment was given for Mr. Campbell Johnstone. Mr. Dickson explained that the late Captain Johnstone appointed the brothers Hallyburton and Campbell Johnstone as his executors, but that only Hallyburton applied and was granted probate on June 7, 1884. Authority was given to Campbell Johnstone to apply for probate if he so desired. There were six beneficiaries under the will, one of whom, however, died, the Public Trustee taking charge of that brother’s share. The sale of the property was effected In 1914 by Campbell Johnstone, who, plaintiff claimed, had received the money in trust, but had not paid out the shares. On behalf of defendant, Mr. Holmden declared that he had acknowledgments from three beneficiaries that their claims had been satisfied. Mr. Dickson claimed that these statements were not received from the beneficiaries until the present action had been commenced. Previously the other legatees had denied having received their shares. Evidence of the sale of the Raglan property for £2OO, effected in 1914 by his brother. Campbell Johnstone was given by Hallyburton Johnstone. He said his brother received all the money from the sale, and although witness had asked for his share, his brother refused to pay out. “He never paid anybody,’* said witness of his brother. “Don’t say that,” Mr. Dickson remonstrated. But this advice did not stop the flood of accusations which witness levelled at his brother. He was finally peremptorily checked by his Honour remarking, “Please be good enough te stop talking and answer Questions.” “ NEVER GAVE ME £5” "I've carried my brother on my back for years and he never gave mo a £5 cheque,’’ protested witness hotly. 'Your brother is a pretty bi* man even for you to carry,” commented his counsel. • “It looks like a typical quarrel between brothers,” commented his Honour. "Like Cain and Abel,” he added “I. don’t know who has got the mark,” replied Mr. Hickson. "I think, however, my client has got the financial mark.” Under cross-examination witness denied that he had ever been in partnership with his brother until Mr. Holmden produced an agreement showing that witness had been in partnership in profits on certain educational leases. He claimed that he had not seen sixpence of the £I.OOO a year profits. Under a private settlement he paid £4,250 to his brother, but at that time he did not claim his share of the £2OO. “Ho you think as a solicitor it was a ‘just settlement’ or a ‘just swindle?” demanded witness. TALK OF SWINDLES “This man,” said witness pointing to his brother, “got me to sign a paper that was never read over to me. It was the greatest swindle ever worked in this court.” “I think he must have got the word ‘swindle’ from the will. It is most remarkable there is a reference to swindle there.” commented his Honour, in perusing that document. The witness admitted having started an action in 1927, but did not proceed with it. He had, however, petitioned Parliament to have the case reopened, adding, “as long as I have breath in my body I will try to get justice in this court.” Questioned as to whether he had received £IBB as compensation for sheep lost in the Maori War, he said that his mother had done so. .His father hnd claimed on the Government, and had petitioned Parliament for compensation for the losses. Witness claimed the sheep belonged to his mother. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE For the defence, Campbell Johnstone said that after the Raglan property ; was sold, he, Hallyburton and Lindsay 1 Johnstone entered into partnership on : the Hauraki Plains properties. He bought the stock and Hallyburton the ! land. As a result of trouble over i mortgages, he and Mrs. Lindsay John--1 j stone proceeded against Hallyburton i Johnstone in 1917. but a settlement was I reached which took everything into ac- ! count, including the proceeds of the sale of the Raglan property His brother had never claimed a snare in the Raglan property proceeds until the present litigation. Lindsay Johnstone had made a gift of his share in the £2OO to witness, who claimed that he ■ had paid his sister her share of stock. Mr. Hickson: Ho you know that you got a few thousand pounds more than you should?—That is absolute ’ rubbish. "It’s not. Your brother thinks. l rightly or wrongly, he had a raw . deal.” —I think the boot was on the other foot. He wouldn't give me three threepenny pieces. ’ “It is quite evident.” said his Honour, “there is very strong feeling ; between the brothers on both sides.” One of tile brothers, the judge coni tinued. had given his evidence in very , : heated fashion. He considered that - j in the settlement in 1921 all matters j in dispute were dealt with, which was ■ 1 supported by the fact that no claitn ; | for his share in the £2OO front the . I Raglan property had been made by , ! plaintiff since 1914. Judgment was - j entered for the defendant with costs, j At this stage plaintiff made a fur- ! j ther accusation against his brother 1 I from the body of the court, and was - told bv the judge that if he did not t; keen quiet he would have to be re. .. | moved.