R. B. BELL’S CLAIM

Wairarapa Times-Age, 9 December 1938, Page 8

R. B. BELL’S CLAIM

AGAINST HIS LATE FATHER’S ESTATE SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL. SOME DETAILS OF INCOME & EXPENDITURE.

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Further addresses by counsel were heard in the Supreme Court today in the action in which Robert Brown Be** claims a larger share in the estate or his late father, Robert Brown Bell, newspaper proprietor, of Christchurch. The estate is worth over £70,000. Defendants are the Perpetual Trustees Estate and Agency Co, Ltd, executors of will, and beneficiaries. In 1926, said Mr C. S. Thomas for William Bell, a beneficiary, plaintiff’s income was £l,lBl, and in the following years £1,763, £1,631, £1,591. £1,476, £1,506, £1,426. £1,311, an? £1,306, dropping in 1935, wlieh he relinquished a directorship of the Ashburton “Guardian,” to £B7l. Over these years, his average annual income was £1,406 and from 1926 to the date of his father’s death it was £1,225. “At the time of his father’s death,” Mr Justice Northcroft pointed out, “ithad shrunk to between £2OO and £300.”

Mr Thomas suggested that the father, in making his will, was entitled to take into consideration that Robert had enjoyed a four-figure income for years. . It was significant, said Mr Thomas, that plaintiff used part of the “Timaru Post” proceeds to clear off his debts. Yet since 1925 he had gone back into debt £4,480, showing that his Spending had exceeded his income by over £3OO a year, besides capital remaining from the “Post” deal.

In answer to the Judge, Mr Thomas said that the father was entitled to believe at his death that Robert was. well off; The Court Was enti/ed to take Robert’s expenditure into account and decline to hand over a lump sum to a spendthrift. In answer to a further question by the Judge, Mr Thomas said he would invite the Court to infer from plaintiff’s lack of candcur that his present position was not as desperate as he made out. At August, 1937, plaintiff had a balance of assets over liabilities totalling £5,503. His son had an interest of £l,BOO in his uncle’s estate. Plaintiff’s trouble was, said Mr Thomas, that he was suffering from self-pity and a sense of grievance against his father and other members of the family. He had big ideas, apparently', about the sort of job that was worthy of his attention. The real position was that plaintiff had been a good soon and his father had wanted to see him fill his shoes. With £2,097 left to him in his father's will, plaintiff had received from his father £12,427, as against £14,484 thaf the other brothers received. Although they received some £2,000 more, plaintiff had been receiving a large income over many years. The case is proceeding.