A FARMER'S WILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 June 1919, Page 7

A FARMER'S WILL.

QUESTION OP LAND VALUES.

AN INTERESTING CASE. In the Supreme Court at Wellington on Friday, before his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), a matter involving the valuation of land in the Faranaki district, bequeathed under a" father's will to several sons, came up for argument. The parties were Patrick Alexander Bourke, of Whenuakura, near Patoa, plaintiff, and James Thomas Bourke, John William Bourke, Andrew Vincent Bourke, Joseph Francis Bourke, all of Whenuakura, and the Public Trustee, defendants.

Mr. T. Young, with him Mr. P. O'Dea, of Hswera, appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. M. Myers, with him Mr. 0. Fleming, for James Thomas Bourke, Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Crombie 9nd Mr. Cook, for John William Bourke, A. V. Bourke, and J. F. Bourke, and Mr. G. Rose for the Public Trust Office. According to the facts, Patrick Bourke, late of Whenuakura, fanner, made his will on April 7, 1905, and* appointed James Kennedy and Edmund Bourke trustees and executors in conjunction with one Thomas Hogan, of Kakaramea. Patrick Bourke died on July 17, 1907, and probate of the will was granted to the parties named as executors. By deed of assignment, dated April 9,1910, James Kennedy, the surviving executor, appointed the Public Trustee sole trustee of the will. The said Patrick Bourke left surviving him five sons, and by his will specifically devised the realty in his estate to his eons in unequal shares, the testator providing that if the lands devised to any particular son were of gTeater value than those devised to another son then the son to whom the land of greater value was devised was to pay to the son to whom the lands of lesser value were devised a sum by way of equality of partition, the testator's intention being that each son should receive an equal benefit from the estate. Upon the youngest son attaining the age of 21 the whole of the properties devised were to be valued, and divided "so that the bequests shall bo of equal Value as far as possible." The youngest son attained his majority on December 4, 1915. On February i, 1916, the ValuerGeneral was asked to make a valuation of the lands, the valuations to be as on December 4, 1915, and the valuations so made were (a) 404 acres Carlyle Survey District devised to Patrick Alexander Bourke, £14,670; (b), 201 acres Carlyle Survey District, devised to James Thomas Bourke, £8262; (c) 300 acres, Hawera, devised to John William Bourke, Joseph Francis Bourke, and Andrew Vincent Bourke, £10,374.

These valuations were objected to by a majority of the devisees, and the Public Trustee endeavored to have a valuation made by a valuer appointed by the beneficiaries, but unanimity in this matter was not reached, arid the ValuerGeneral was requested to have a special valuation of the properties obtained, as on December 4, 1915, the Valuer-General being informed of the purpose of the valuation. On February 25, 1917, the Valuer-General forwarded valuations as follow:

(a) £13,843; (b) '£8779; (c) "£10,116. The Public Trust Office accepted these valuations, and accounts were prepared and forwarded to the beneficiaries for their written approval. On July 6.1917, the three younger- sons, through their solicitors (Messrs Chapman, Skerrett, Tripp, and Blair), wrote to the Public Trustee protesting that the valuations were absurdly low, and adduced evidence in favor of their contention, and claimed that they would be unfairly treated if the valuation were adopted as the basis of distribution.

A strong prima facie case having been made out in favor of the three younger sons, the Public Trust Office decided to itivite all the beneficiaries to a conference, and eventually a conference was held at Wellington on January 18, 1918. At this conference, a strong case was made out in favor of the three younger sons, and as a matter of equity it was decided to obtain a fresh valuation by a private valuer. Messrs J. R. Corrigan and Oswald Hawken, of Hawera, were instructed to make the valuation, and they submitted the following:—(a) £21,722 Is; (b) £13,067; (c) £13,528 Is; total £48,312 2s.

This valuation was accepted as the basis of distribution, and the valuation of each son's share in the realty was treated as £9698 8s 6d, being one-fifth of the total value of £48,312; that Patrick Alexander Bourke pay £12,059 12s 7d and James Thomas Bourke £3904 lis ?d by way of equality ,of interest., and that out of the sum received by way of equality 1 of interest the three youngest sons receive £5076 4s each.

The two eldest sons desired the special valuation obtained by the Valuer-General to be adhered to, on the ground that the Public Trustee had in terms of the Will adopted that valuation, while the three younger sons insisted upon the valuations made by the independent valuers being the basis of distribution. The case had not concluded when the court rose.—Dominiort.