TERMS OF A WILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 May 1922, Page 6

TERMS OF A WILL.

SON’S APPLICATION FOR SHARE. SINGLE, ABLE-BODIED MAN. SHOULD HE PARTICIPATE? An originating summons, Hugh Phillip Rendall, of Wanganui, laborer, versus Arthur John Rendall, of Whakatane, and Jane Beavis, of Tauranga, was heard by His Honor Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. It constituted a claim for provision under the Family Protection Act, plaintiff contending that he was entitled to receive a share of the estate left under the will of his mother to the defendants, his brother and sister respectively. Mr. C. H. Croker appeared for plaintiff and Mr. R. H. Quilliam for the defendants. According to Mr. Croker, Phillip Ren dall worked on his father’s farm (in the Waitara district )< as an assistant for some years, and for part of the time as manager. For the greater portion of that period he received little or no remuneration. He entered into a contract to serve his father for five years, and during that period he received £lB per annum, and was promised a sum of £l5O. He had not received this, and he did not make a claim, as he was told the sum would be added to his share. His father died leaving everything to the widow, Ellen Rendall. The latter died on November 12, 1920, and it was the disposal of the property under the terms of her will which was the subject of the case. Objection might be taken on the grounds that plaintiff was a single, able-bodied man.

It was stated the amount involved in the estate was £3BOO. It was contended for the defendants that the plaintiff. Hugh Phillip Rendall, naa been able to buy the farm from his mother at much below its value in 1913 and had re-sold it in 1916 at a good profit, and that the allowance on the farm constituted his share. His Honor said counsel for the plaintiff would realise he had a hard case, because it was an instance of an at>!ebodied man seeking to share in an estate. Arthur John Rendall, the defendant, residing in the Whakatane county, was cross-examined by Mr. Croker as to why he held the opinion that his brother had received the farm at an undervalue. Witness said lie placed the value of his father’s farm of 130 acres in 1913 at £4O per acre, and he knew through a letter from his mother that she had practically refused £45 per acre for it. His brother paid £4O an acre for the farm as a going concern.

A daughter of deceased, Mrs. Jane Beavis, was examined by counsel for plaintiff concerning her mother's attitude towards Hugh. /She denied her mother told her that if Hugh had corresponded with her she would have given him an equal allowance with the others. She did not recollect her mother complaining about her brother not writing when he was away at the war and that this was why he had been left out of the will. After her father’s death her mother seemed a great deal changed and was difficult to get on with. Witness admitted sayrng her mother’s death that she would be quite prepared to share equally with her brother, because she believed her mother had treated him harshly. She explained that she said this because she was under the impression he had to pay a fair price for the farm; she now believed it was a gift at the price he paid for it. Thomas Freaeh, who gave evidence regarding land values in the Bell Block district, placed the value of his own farm in 1913 at £3O an acre. He admitted he had not heard of a sale of land similar to his or Rendall’s for £4O per acre. Evidence as to values was given on similar lines by F. Sampson. In the course-of the proceedings His Honor said he did not think it made much difference whether the farm which defendant had bought had been under valued or not. “A will should not be disturbed unless there is some palpable injustice,” he said. “In this case the beneficiaries are a man who has a family of ten children and the daughter of deceased. The Other party is apparently an able-bodied single man with no encumbrances.”

Addressing the Court in conclusion, Mr. Croker urged that the Court could alter or re-make a will where children were entitled to a share and did not receive it as they should. Counsel admitted that in the present case he was urging the claims of a single man, but he submitted this fact was equalised by the work which Hugh Phillip Rendall had dome in improving the farm, this entitling him to a share of the bounty.

In asking counsel for the defendant to give his views, His Honor said his own opinion was that he should not disturb the will.

Mr. Quilliam submitted that no case had gone as far as His Honor was asked to go in this instance. His Honor suggested ,some arrangement might be made regarding the payment of the £l5O, which, it was stat-

ed, had been promised to plaintiff. When the Court resumed in the afternoon, however, it was stated' that no arrangement could be arrived at. His Honor then stated that, as already indicated, .he did not think plaintiff had any claim, and the summons would be dismissed.