TRUST COMMISSION REPORT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 636, 21 July 1891, Page 3

TRUST COMMISSION REPORT.

ADDITIONAL EXTRACTS. You know the story of this [Mrs Dallon’s] estate ? Rev. Mr DeCastro : Yes. Who famished this general report on the estate ? Whose writing is that ? That is my writing, from Morrison’s dictation. I think it is all in my writing. When a person comes in to give information about an intestate estate, we are in the habit of taking down what he or she may say. I see here that the story of this woman is, 1 Believed to be unmarried, and one son believed to be illegitimate,’ and there is is a memorandum, • Jewellery must not be sold at present—R. C. H,’ and this memorandum initialled by yourself, • Jewellery reserved ’ 1 Yes. That jewellery of which there is no detailed account. Yet the account sales of the auctioneer show that there was a large number of other things besides clothes—a large quantity of furniture, ornaments, chests of drawers, statuettes, decanters, travellingbag, workbox and contents, book, glove box, 4e ? They were all sent down by Morrison to the auction-room. You received a communication from the son ? Yes. Requesting you not to dispose of the effects of his mother pending word from him. That appears to have come in the shape of a cable on the 28th January, 1889, hut the sale had taken place a fortnight before ? Of course we sold the general effects as soon as we could get rid of them. This is the cablegram from Queensland : “ 28th January, 1889. Public Trustee, Wellington, New Zealand.— Re my mother, deceased: Do not dispose personal property. Communicating.—Arthur Dallon.” You had disposed prior to the receipt of that cable of the personal effects, hut bad reserved the jewellery ? Yes. Then you advise him to that effect. You say here: "Mr A. E. Dallon, Police Court, Oatton, Queensland. —16th Febrnary, 1889.— Marie Dallon, deceased : Replying to yours of the 28th ultimo, I have to inform you that all the furniture and effects of this deceased were sold prior to the receipt of your telegram, with the exception of her jewellery, which has been reserved pending advice as to the disposal from the next of kin. The furniture and effects netted £53 7s lOd, and, as far as I know, is the only asset. The claims received against ths estate, including burial expenses, amount to £39 16s 2d, and possibly some more may be preferred, I enclose a circular which shows the proofs of kinship required before the residue can be paid to the next of-kin.—R. C. Hambbton.” Then he writes on the Sth March, stating bis desire to have the Jewellery forwarded to him, Why was that not done? We did forward him what he was entitled to receive. What do you mean by • what he was entitled to receive ’ ’ We had bis watch, and a few little things. There is the receipt for them all, Personal effects of his own ? Yes. I think there were some few trifles added of no pecuniary value. Why was the balance not sent to him? Ha has never proved that he is next-of-kin. He is supposed to be illegitimate. I unde stood the papers in the estate showed the whole story in the office ? We have pretty good reason for saying the boy is illegitimate. At any rate, he has never proved his kinship. There are letters here, Mr De Castro, which appear to have been found in ths possession of deceased, addressed to his mother from Sydney, I My dear mother,’ and signed * Your affectionate son, Arthur.’ Was not that proof enough that he was next-of-kin ? Certainly not. She may have been his mother: who was his father ? He has not rendered any proof of being next-of kin. Is it necessary that every person should render a proof of their legitimacy to this office ? It is necessary he should prove he is entitled to receive the goods. Is it necessary in this office that every person should furnish a proof of their legitimacy before being placed in possession of the personal estate of their father or mother ?

I think under the Act we can pay the proceeds of an intestate estate of the mother to her illegitimate issue. I am asking you a question : Is it absolutely necessary, in accordance with the practice of this office, that every person shall, if their mother is deceased, and who is the only Bon or daughter of the person so deceased, furnish proofs of legitimacy before the department pays? Yes, Will you give us an instance, or two or three instances, in which that principle has been acted upon in other cases ? In all cases. Will you give us the names ? There are so many estates, I cannot call to my mind particular cases at this moment. Will you be good enough to tell us upon what evidence you decline to admit the right ot Arthur Dallon to receive hie mother’s effects ? Because he has not proved his right to receive them. There is no proof he is the eon of Mrs Dallon. There is no proof such as a solicitor would accept. Here is a letter addressed by him to hie mother found in her box ? But that is not sufficient proof of kinship. Is not that prima facie evidence of the sonehip, or of the relationship ? It is not sufficient for us at any rate. There might be another son ; there might be daughters; there might be half-a-dozen children and they are all entitled to equal shares. Have you made inquiry to find any other relations ? No, It is not our business to make inquiry to find relatives; it is their business to find ns out. r , . . ] You tell us you never admitted the kinship of the deceased ? No, we have not. Would you listen to this letter: I To Mr Arthur E. Dallon, Police Court. Gatton, gueensland, 26th March, 1889.—Marie alien, deceased : Replying to your letter of the 9th instant, none ot your late mother’s Jewellery was sold. The boxes of clothing mentioned by you are still at Mr Morrison’s and will be forwarded to you, with your gold watch and your mother’s brooch, if you pay the carriage. Your claim to the residue, as sole next-of-kin. cannot be established without proofs of kinship.—R, C. HamkbTOW’? He says, 1 Mrs Dallon is my mother; ’ we say we cannot recognise his claim to anything belonging to her until he has established his claim in legal form. Are such letters as those submitted to the Public Trustee before destruction, or do you take upon yourself to destroy them ? Sometimes I have shown them. I may sometimes not. So that really a great portion of the evidence that would bear on the legitimacy or otherwise of thia young man is missing. Is it a fact that a number of private memoranda, the letters bearing on the legitimacy or other wise of this young man, have been destroyed by you ? Yas; private letters. Here it a letter from this young man, in which he addressee bar as <• Dear Mother," and you do not recognise that as proof of kinshtp ?

go. There is a letter dated the 9th March, 1889, from Arthur Dallon, as follows:—[Letter gives the young man’s history, referring to gentlemen in Wellington and Queensland who conld identify him. After referring to tne sale of his mother’s effects he goes on:— J am her only child, she not having had any more children. I wrote Mr Morrison to settle everything jn connection with my Siothet’s funeral and doctor’s expenses, but y your memorandum, they will be defrayed from the sale of effects. I hope you will be kind enough to show me some way to lay plaim to my own and the rest of my mother’s effects; and I might ask, as a further favor, not to dispose of the Jewellery, especially the brooch and my watch; or, if compelled to do so, allow me the first offer, and I will guaran. tee aey jeweller’s valuation; If amount ( a

hand at present not sufficient to settle all claims, please let me know, and I will forward deficiency. Hoping you will see fit to favor me with the information I require.] Did you, in reply to this letter, furnish Mr Dallon with the information that would have enabled him to prove his legitimacy ? A copy of the reply to that letter is there [on the file of papers]. Please answer that question [papers shown to witness]? We did not forward information for him to prove his legitimacy. He must prove his legitimacy to our satisfaction. Would it not have been the proper course, in reply to such a letter, to have furnished this young man with the information that the office required to establish his legitimacy ? Well, there would be the schedule put in as to the proofs of kinship required—a printed form. Was that put in this reply ? It ought to have been. It ought to have been marked ‘ Enclosure.’ I do not think it has been through my hands at all. We generally enclose to persons of that sort a printed schedule. So that, in reply to this letter, the following reply was eent: ‘ 26'h March, 1889.— Mr Arthur Dallon, Police Court, Gatton, Qieeneland. —Marie Dallon, deceased : Replying to your letter of the 9ih instant, none of your late mother’s jewellery was fold. The boxes of clothing mentioned by you are still at Mr Morrison’.g, and will be forwarded to you, with your gold watch and your mother’s brooch, if you pay the carriage. Your claim to the residue, ss sole next-of-kin, cannot be established without proofs of kinship.—R. 0. Hamebton ’ ’ It is a general rule cf the office to put in that schedule. I have no doubt it was put in, and it ought to have been marked there • Enclosure.’ Mr Hamerton, since we last saw you, evidence has cropped up. in continuing our examination of your second officer in command, the Rev, Mr DeCastro, of rather a startling nature. That is to say, we gather from him that it has been the custom, since almost the Public Trust Office was estab - lished, to allow officers to attend auction sales and buy portions of any estate in your hands for careful administration that is being sold by auction. Is that so ? I believe it has been so. I myself never issued any instruction upon it. Have you yourself ever purchased any article belonging to an estate ? I have asked the Chief Clerk to bid up to a certain amount for articles belonging to an estate. Then in that way you have acquired articles ? I have. And you have articles in your possession at the present time that have been so purchased ? Yes. Could you give a description of those several articles to the Commissioners ? I think I purchased three, perhaps four, gold watches, and, I think, two silver watches. Did you ever buy any other article of bijouterie or jewellery : I have an idea that there were two gold rings at one time. Both purchased on the same day 1 Yes. They were very poor things, but they were called rings. Did you ever buy anything else ? Not that I am aware of. Did you ever buy any clothes ? No, The reason I ask you is because we find that the Rev. Mr DeCastro on one occasion bought a coat. So that the range of purchases by the officers is not altogether confined to jewellery 5 No. Then, it was within your knowledge that the officers of the department were purchasing? No, it was not within my knowledge. I did not know- that any one was a purchaser, Well, when I say any one, I had an idea that Mr DeCastro purchasedf because he did tell me he purchased some silver watches. Then, you did know that the second officer in command was purchasing ? Yes. Did you know that the third officer—Mr Moginie—had also purchased ?. No. Well, presuming you knew that Mr DeCastro was purchasing, and that you yourself had purchased, would you have objected to any other officer doing the same thing ? I should not. Do you remember the realisation by auction of part of the personality in the estate of Mrs Dillon ? I knew that realisation was going on, but I do not recollect the date. Well, there was a very nice ladies’ gold watch sold among her effects ? Yes. And two rings ’ I could not say. I know there was a gold watch. Do you remember the price those two rings you bought cost ? No; it was something very small. There were two rings sold in Mrs Dallon’s estate for £1; would they not likely be the rings that fell to you ? No; I think not. If I recollect rightly, the rings that I bought belonged to the estate of some person not a Wellington resident, but I am not sure. Do you remember that the ladies’ gold watch belonging to Mrs Dallon’s estate was purchased by you ? I think so. I authorised Mr De DeCastro to go up to rather a heavy price, as I thought, and I believe he purchased that watch. What was the price ? £6. Was that the price you authorised the Rev. Mr DeCastro to go to ? Yes ; I am speaking from memory, but I think that is so. Then, that is the watch which her son wrote to you about from Queensland when he asked you to preserve that among other things, so that he might get them ? If I may be allowed to look at the records I could say, but not without. I may say that if he now desires the watch he shall have it. Now, did the son not write to the Public Trustee from Queensland asking the Public Trustee to retain that watch, with other articles belonging to his mother on which he set a particular value ’ He did. Then, you did not care to do that ? No, that is not the position. I did not do that. Why did you not do so ? May I remind you that, in speaking of this estate before, you gave as one reason that you had doubts about this person’s legitimacy ? If I remember rightly, your explanation on a former occasion was that you did not consider there was any kinship ? I am not aware that the Commissioners put any questions to me in this estate on a former occasion, Mr DeCastro has stated his reason for not recognising any claim by this reputed son, and you do not remember any circumstances in connection with it? Yes, here is a minute—Claim cannot be established without proof of kinship ; inform writer as to box of clothing, watch, and brooch, and state that these may be forwarded on hie paying carriage. They were eventually sold by auction, but many things wefe handed to Mr Morrison on behalf of Dallon, The watch was bought by the Rev, Mr De Castro for one of your daughters 1 He has told us that your instructions to him were to buy that watch at a certain price, as you wished to make a birthday present to a daughter. Do you think it likely you made that statement to him f Quite likely I did. Now, what have you done with the other articles you have purchased in a similar way ? I have presented other daughters with a gold watch, and sons with a silver watch. Now, Mr Hamerton, in your position as Public Trustee, do ycu not look upon the trust as a very sacred [one P Most certainly. Have you seen the papers in Mrs Dallon’s case? Yes. Do you not think it an extremely hard case that the son should have been treated in that manner by the Public Trust Department, looking at the fact that, being in Brisbane, he took the trouble to cable to you not to uispoea of bia mother’s effects, and afterwards wrote a long and manly latter in

reference to his mother, giving yon the story of his mother ? Letters are found from bim to his mother of the most affectionate character ; and yet, notwithstanding his desire, and the trouble he took by cabling from Australia, the jewellery is sold away from him, and he has no opportunity even of purchasing. It is not even valued. He asked to be allowed to purchase; he asked the department to set a value on the jewellery, and he will pay for it; but the department simply brands him as illegitimate, refuses to argue the question, and rams the thing into an auction room ? No; we asked him for proofs. In my letter of the 16th February I say, ‘ I enclose a circular which shows the proofs of kinship required before the residue can be paid to the next-of-kin.’

Does he not refer you to a number of gentlemen of good standing, who knew he was the recognised son of this lady ? But to this day he has not appeared. Now, Mr Hamerton, have you looked thoughtfully at the last act of this sorrowful drama ? When the very watch that belonged to this poor fellow’s mother was sold, you became the purchaser of it for your daughter, and she is in possession of it to-day, notwithstanding that you had recognised young Dallon as the son of that woman whom you supposed to have borne him in illegitimacy ? Has it ever occurred to you that your position was a very sad and sorry one in connection with this unfortunate,‘case ? It has never occurred to mo in that light, but it does so now you mention it, and as some little reparation I will consign that watch to the son if I can find him.

But that will not get over your last touching act of the drama—that such a thing could have happened, that such a picture should now present itself ? I can only make restitution to him as far as I can. It is a pity it has happened. But then, of course, there are dozens of cases where the office, through its officials, have possessed themselves of parts of dead people’s estates ? Well, without looking through it I cannot tell. However, so far as I can make restitution 1 shall. The crime does not appear a heinous one in my eyes. Then, you only think it wrong in that estate ?

Simply because of the circumstances, which you haye brought to my mind more graphically than was ever brought before.