THE DISPUTED WILL CASK.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 154, 2 July 1896, Page 5

THE DISPUTED WILL CASK.

EDGCOMBE V, EDGCOMBE . AftD

OTHERS,

The action brought by George Edgcombe to upset the will of his late, uncle, William Edgcombe, on the ground that the latter waa aot of sound mind when the will was executed, was continued yosberday before His Honor Mr Justice Conoily and a jury of twelve. . '• . :.

Dr. Laishley and Mr Battley appear for the plaintiff, Mr Cooper (instructed by Mr Burton) for tho trustees (Flora Edgcomba and John Bollard) and Mr Gottor and Mr McGregor for some of the English ■ beneficisriea. ■;> • ■ ■ ■•"; -■'■■■■ ■'''■' After went went to press George Edgcombe (tho plaintiff) deposed that) ha and his wife and family came from America in 1883 ao the expense of his uncle. On bis arrival hero hj w*nt to the Western Springs to a house M: Edgcombe bad prepared for him. In >ha course of bia two or three years' residence there Mr Edgcombe told him the Edgcombe farm was to be for 999 years in fche Edgcombe family ; that ib was to be "my father's (Roger Edgcombe) before me, and then mo after him." At the end of about) three years, being out of employment), ha left); - bat he bad no quarrel with his uncle prior to > leaving. Deceased also mentioned a property at Fukekohe, which ha mentioned would belong to his (Witness's) children. In January, 1893, witness letb for Taranaki, but since thon he had been working in Auckland." Witness also gave lengthy evidence as to the testator's infirm mental condition since 1890. He used to tell witness tiiab people were following him about the paddocks wanting to kill him, and frequently he asked witness to see who they were.. Whea witness left be had no quarrel-with his uncle, nor bad he given him offence in any way. By Mr Cooper: His uncle told him he intended the farm to remain in the Edgcombe ifamily, but he afterwards sold all the Mount. Edgcombe property, except ten acres, to tbe.City Council.

Mr Cooper: That constituted the bulk of his property. He gob £10,000 for it. Witness: I do not know what he gob for it.

His Honor asked if it was taken compulsoriiy. . Mr Cooper said it; adjoined the Water Worke, and as Mr Edgcombe had put up tallow works on it the City Council had 'to buy out hi* property to preserve the purity of the water supply.

His Honor said he thought it might have been taken under the Public Works Act.

Mr Cooper eaid it was a valuntary eate on bis part, and a compulsory purchase by the City Council. Tba witness was also cross-examined by Mr Cotter.

Dr. C. H. Haines, who examined the testator on the 25th October, 1893, said he put down the latter's state at the time to senile dementia. This was a gradual dqcay of the mental powers. In witness's opinion he was then of unsound mind and incapable of managing hia affairs. He found Mr Edgcombe subjecb to delusions Senile dementia waa absolutely incurable, and when once it set la ib wae subject to intermittent increase—the symptoms were intermittent, but the disease was progressive. It could nob be caused by an accident, but it might be aggravated by it. If the symptoms described—loss of memory, childish behaviour, delusions, and incapacity for bußines» — existed in Mr Edgcombo in 1891, they would still exist in 1892, if caused by senile dementia. By Mr Cooper: Theae symptoms could not have been caused by a fall or an injury to the head. • ■ •

On the Court resuming this morning, the plaintiff, who was examined yesterday, was re-called. In answer to the jury, he said he thought the hrsb time he heard of the will was in 1894, He did riob object to probate being granted in December last because Mr King told him that it would be all right, that his uncle waa not capable of niuk"»j£r a will. ' ;

Edward Hughos, ex-defcective, eaid he acted ac custodian of tbe late William Edgcombe from 15th August., 1893, till his death, in December, 1895. During thab time he had frequent conversations with Mr* Edgcombe about her husband. On one occasion Mrs Edgcombe gave him a short history of her husband's ca«o.' She eaid (hat about three months after they were married Ma memory was failing, that he was unable to transact business, that be had squandered his estate, that he was being imposed upon, that she Was obliged to go with him to transact, the business of the estate, and that six months after marriage she had found Mr Edgcombe was radically wrong.

By Mr Cooper : The inetaecos mentioned by Mrs Edgcombe of her husband squandering lan money were lending £2,200 on the Marine Chambers, leading £3,000 on the College Road property, discounting bills which were worthless, and squandering his money about town generally.

Dr. Ernest E. Fooka expressed the that) if deceased showed a failing memory and an inaptitude for business in 1891, which gradually pot worse as time \venb on, ho was, in. witness's opinion, suffering from senile dementia. An accident would certainly not cause senile deuaentia, bub its might: aggravate it. On being examined as to the certificate given by Dr. Purcbas, the witness said a cartifi. cute of insanity or sanity was worth nothing without examination, * ■ ■ ■ Witness was examined also as to bis opinion of the deceased's state of mind at the time of the (acts on the part) ot the deceased mentioned by a number of the previous witnesses. He deposed that the acts referred to by the witnessee were consistent with the condition of senile dementia. ■

The witness was cross-examined by Mr 'Cotter at some length; This closed the ca6e for plaintiff. .The remainder of the time up to the luncheon adjournment) was occupied with Mr Cooper's opsning address on behalf of the trustees.

This afternoon Ernesb William Burton, barrister one! solicitor, deposed to being in parbtitirehip with Mr Keesing in 1892. Since about ISS6 or 1887 the late Mr Edgcombe had baen a client of the firm. In August, 1592, be came to witness' office in company with bis wife, one of the oresont defendants. The ' will was. dated 26th August, 1892, and witness had two interviews with tho testator "prior to thac date. On one of those ■ occasions ho told witness bo desired to make a will. Aftar eotne. few remarks witness suggested the propriety of filrs Edgcombe (who WUB present) retiring, vrhicb she did. Then witness jotted down as they woo b along Mr Ecigcombe'a various wishes, as shown on the paper produced, which was bhab used by witness at the time. The alterations on the p»por, viz., £60 to £70 lesacy to Mr Bollard as'trustee, £1,000 to £2.000 to Mrs Edycombo, and £150 to £300 to Grace Larkwortby, were macJa on a subsequent occa»ion. When witness nnish«d taking down his instruction?, Mr Edgcotabe asked for them aa he wanted to show them to Homeone. W itnesa thought ie wa« Mr Bollard. Mrßdgcombe took them away with him. In the interview referred to he spoke quite connectedly, and gave witoioaß rarious reasons for *oni9 of the gifts. Witness made no suggeeliou aa to hovv they money should be left. By Mia Honor : Mr Edgeecnibe had no notea with him, but witness had either the previous will or a draft of it to refer to. By Mr Cooper: The previous will was made out by mtnees. That waa dated the 28th of March. 1890, when the second wife was living. Ab the fireb interview, witness aaw nothing in Mr Edgecombe which

would justify him to -"j"?^ j^J latter's instructions. Tho toUawiafg A»f Mr Edgcombe came back with the iustruolions and then some amendment* w«|r« made in them by witness at the diotfttien of .the testator. At that interview, »!«>, witness Baw uothing to justify bim concluding that Sir Edgeombo aid not know wbab he was about, vu the following Friday the will was read over by witness at.his. office to Mr Edgcombe and hia wife ana. Mr BoUajd. According to an entry in witness* diary, Mr Edgcombe appeared to dearly uafUasban J the will.