A DEAD MAN'S SHOES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 196, 18 August 1913, Page 6

A DEAD MAN'S SHOES.

THE MTLLXCN WILL CASE. LADY SACKVILLE WITTS. (From Onr Special Correspondent.) LONDON, July 11. One of the biggest lights over a dead man's money came lv an end this week, when a special .jury decided that L-ady Saekvillc, wife of the owner of "Knole," Sevenoaks, Kent—one of the most famous of those "stately homes of Fugland"' of which the poet sang—had not, unduly influenced the late Sir John Murray Scott to leave ber -.1 big slice of his most a-roplp fortune. Sir John died leaving property of the net. value of £ 1,180,----000, and out of this amount the dead man bequeathed to Lady Sackville, free of death duties. £150.000 in cash and works of art valued at about £410,000, in nil some £r>oo,ooo. Out of the remainder he made certain provision for his brothers, sisters, and other relatives, but some of them were nor, sntis/Qed with their sliare of the pickings, -and commenced an action to have the will set aside on the .round thai. Lady Sackville hud used "undue influence" upon Sir John Scott. They did not dare to suggest that her relations with the testator were other than purely platonie. but I hey pictured her as an unscrupulous. designing female, who exercised much the same sort of control over Sir John as a snake does over a rabbit that is unfortunate enough to come within range of the baleful glitter of the ophidian's optics. Sir John they made out to be a peculiarly silly old fool wdio. where Lady Sackville was concerned, was nothing better than a lunatic at large. Moreover, there -wns in some of the evidence produced, a sort of suggestion that LadjSackville either destroyed or was privy to the destruction of a codicil to the will which would have materially enhanced the relatives' share of the estate, 'md correspondingly diminished her ladv■d.ip's. The case lasted eight days, mid such evidence as was produced again-t Luly Srickville. whilst showing that undoubtedly she and her daughter held a foremost place in Sir John's heart, proved that the nloa of fraud, or even "undue influence," was absurd. What the jury thought of the case 'against Lady Sackviile was shown by the fact that between the time 01" their leaving the box after Sir Samuel Evans' summing up and their return with their verdict, less than ten minutes elupsed. There was, indeed, not a particle of proof that Sir John was unduly influenced within the legal meaning of t hose words.

Sir Samuel Evans, in his summing up, indeed, expressed his personal opinion that no jury could convict Lord and Lady Sackville of fraud, and explained what

"undue inlluence" was in the legal sense of the term. "It is only." he said, "when the will of a person is coerced into doing that, which he does not wish to do that undue inlluence is exercised. If this was an honest friendship, engendered by congenial 1-istcs. an affinity of natures, then il was a perfectly legitimate inlluence in Ihe eyes of the law."

The independent evidence heard in Court emphatically justified Sir Samuel's expression of opinion. U made it clear that at the time he made the will he was in full possession of hi- senses and knew perfectly well what, he was doing. It was also made clear that whilst Lady Sackville naturally endeavoured to keep in Sir John's good books—nho would not. seeing the "expectations" at stake?—she did not go to (he length even of "eating humble pie" when (hey had. us all friends have, occasional tiffs. Tin; family, indeed. Ir.nl a bad ens..- and uid not make it any the better by fixing lo sit on two stools at once. H was part of their case tl,;ii ten years after he had made his mil Sir .lolm had executed a codi-il depriviric Lady S- ; ,-!<ville of the bequest, but though some sort of a draft of this alleged codicil existed, no proof of its I'xeculion was forthcoming.

In order to give colour to the allegation ilia! Mich a codicil bad been executed hv

Sir John, it was represented that Sir ■ 'iilwi was tyrannised over beyond endurance by Lndy Sackville i;i her later years. This was dirr.-Uy opposed to the t'heorv Ibey put forward concerning her lady-

ship's irresistible influence over the millionaire, nod. indeed, the lady at this period was represented as something the

very reverse of fascinating to Sir John or anybody else—a domineering, bullying termagant, of whom the unfortunate knight stood in mortal terror. The truth

.-.wins lo have been that Sir John, after a biid illness in 100 S. became rather irritable, and exacting, ar.d that Lady Sackville. ti high-spirited woman, found it a terribly difficult task to play the part of a lady with "great expectations" at all successfully. Her patience with Sir John seetiis. indoor], to have been very b.-.div frayed at the edges, threadbare all over. and in imminent danger nf falling to

The only satisfaction the Scott family lias got out of the action is that their portion of the dead man's fortune will be lessened by a huge hi!! of <_«ts. whilst Mr Malcolm Scott, who contested (he will on behalf of the family, loses, under its provisions, the whole of his legacy for so doing.

That tbe family have been beaten in their attempt to get a bigger share of Sir John's fortune than be thought tit to leave thc-m is not a matter for regret.' He was not robbing them of something that had been "in the family" or made by their brother or his forebears. Practically the whole of tl-.e money originally belonged to Si r Ttiehard Wallace, the. famous art collector, whose widow willed it to Sir John Murray Scott, under presumably some such inlluence as that which Lady Sackville exercised over Sir John.

Of course, a man in disposing of his wealth ought to make provision for those depending upon him, but in this case there is no room for suggestion that tbe testajor did not do his duty to his relatives. Sir John had shown himself an unusually generous brother during bis life, and the value of the Sackville legacy did not amount to half of liis huge estate, which he gained by his influence over Lady Wallace. Thanks to their brother, the Scott family have secured a goodly portion of it. For this they have repaid him by holding him up for public inspection as a. sort of imbecile, unfit to be trusted with the management of his own affairs.