TRAGEDY AND LAW.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 68, 21 March 1934, Page 5

TRAGEDY AND LAW.

N.S.W. COURT RULING.

THREE DEATHS IN FAMILY. * SUCCESSION TO THE ESTATE. (Prom Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, March 16. On July 18, 1932, the marine suburb of Mosman was shocked by news of a terrible tragedy. In a pretty home, in a quiet street, three dead bodies were lying —father, mother and daughter—all having been evidently killed by gunshot. The father, Harry Plaister, a man still under 50, was well known and highly respected by employers and neighbours, and he and his wife had always seemed extremely happy, devoted to each other and to the girl of 13, who was their only child. There was nothing but circumstantial evidence—including the finding of the gun with which the crime had evidently been committed —to guide the police. But putting all things together, they concluded that Plaister, in a fit of temporary insanity, had shot his wife and his daughter and then killed himself, and this view of the case commended itself to the coroner, who after a careful inquiry gave a verdict accordingly.

But Plaister was a man of substantial means, and legal difficulties arose about the disposal of his estate. It was found that both Plaister and his wife had left rather remarkable wills, in which each left to the other Ms or her estate, provided that one month should elapse between their respective deaths. But in the event of the time mentioned not expiring, the property was to go to their daughter Alma, who, if they were both dead, would naturally inherit the property as next of kin. The legal questions at issue were whether the mother had inherited from the father or vice versa, and who was to receive the intestate estate of the dead daughter, .

Application for Ruling. The Perpetual Trustee Company is administering the daughter's intestate estate, and it is also trustee and executor of the wills left by both father and mother, and it therefore applied to the Equity Court for a ruling as to the succession to the estate. All the details of the tragedy were carefully reviewed by the Court, and this week Sir John Harvey gave its decision in accordance with the view set forth by the police at the inquest —that Plaister shot first his daughter and then his wife, and then finally killed himself.

His Honor admitted that as the evidence was purely circumstantial this ' ruling might not represent the actual facts; but he considered that the circumstances reviewed presented the ' degree of "certainty" required by the law, and justified his decision. It is therefore assumed that the daughter died first and the father last; and in such a case the girl's property, if she had any, would go to her father. But the mother died after the daughter, and her property, whatever it was, 1 would pass half to her lmsband and the other half to her next-of-kin. Then the father died, and, his wife and daughter having predeceased him, the whole of his property will pass to his next-of-kin. Was He Sane or Insane? This view of things certainly simplifies the situation most effectively. But there was still another question to answer —was Plaister sane or insane when he committed these terrible deeds? The point, of course, is that if he were sane he was a murderer, and under English law it is held that no murderer can succeed to an estate, either in the intestacy or under the will of his victim. But if Plaister were insane, there was no legal bar to his succession to the property of the daughter and the wife who had predeceased him, and the decision set forth above regarding the succession to the estate must hold good. What, then, is known about Plaister's state of mind at the time when he committed this act? Sir John Harvey reviewed with great care the evidence submitted to the coroner, which showed that Plaister was suffering from pronounced melancholia; that he was unduly worried about trifles, which weighed heavily on his mind; that he was obsessed by the conviction that he had committed a heinous misdemeanour by making a false declaration to the

Income Tax Commissioner, stating that part of his wife's property had come to her from her mother, and not from him; 'he was distressed about the way in which his fellow employee*? treated him, and he had said often that he was not worth the salary that he was drawing.

Letter to Commissioner.

As regards the income tax return, he was eo, gravely perturbed about it that on July 15—three days before the_ end —he wrote a letter to the commissioner making a clean breast of his mis-state-ment. Evidently, said his Honor, he van ted to gooourt r of the world .with a •lean conscience. On the other hand, here was much evidence to show that lusband and wife were on affectionate ;erms, and happy together, and the ather in particular was intensely proud >f his daughter. On all these grounds collectively the Court decided that ?laister must have been in a condition )f temporary mental derangement when le killed his daughter and his wife; md therefore the normal law of suclession and inheritance would apply.

No doubt certain interested parties will be dissatisfied with this, but to the outsider Sir John Harvey's statement would appear to be a remarkably able, dispassionate and convincing attempt to solve a highly complicated legal problem.