KILLED MOTHER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 14, 17 January 1940, Page 5

KILLED MOTHER.

SON'S CONFESSION.

CLAIM TO £4300 ESTATE.

PROBLEM FOR JUDGE.

LONDON, January 1

Whether a son's confession that he murdered his mother affected his right to inherit her property was debated in a Chancery Division action in London.

Mr. Justice Crossman was asked to decide whether Maurice Ernest Bevis, formerly of North End, Portsmouth, who confessed to having killed his father and his mother, was excluded from any benefit in his mother's estate. Bevis, who was under 18 at the time, was convicted of the murder of his father and was ordered to be detained during the King's pleasure. A charge of murdering his mother was not proceeded with. Thomas George Bundock, of Sholing, Southampton, a brother of the mother, also claimed her estate. Mr. Maurice Berkeley (for Mr. Henry Scott, director of the Central Association ,for the Aid of Discharged Convicts and one of the administrators of the estate) I stated that the mother, Mrs. Matilda Sophia Bevis, died intestate. Her estate was valued at £4396, of which £3710 was derived from Mr. Bevis. Mr. and Mrs. Bevis both died on January Iβ, 1938, and on the following day the son signed a statement which said he hit his father on the head with a chopper and then went to the bathroom and hit his mother two or three times, cutting her head open. Direction Sought. Although Bevis confessed to his mother's murder, said Mr. Berkeley, he had not been found guilty, and thej administrators required the of the Court as to wh-> was entitled to tbe 1 estate. ,

Mr. J. F. Bowyer (for Mr. Bundock) contended the assumption must be that the son murdered his mother, and so it would be against public policy that the son should take the estate. Mr. R. W. Goff (for the son) submitted that his confession could not be admitted in civil proceedings and that the whole matter must be considered afresh. He read evidence to the effect that Bevis was passionately fond and very proud of his mother. Mr. Justice Crossman stated that Maurice Bevis might claim to have been acquitted of killing his mother. He added: "But that does not prevent me finding that he did. It is a curious state of affairs." Later the judge asked: "Is it really necessary for me to decide whether the boy murdered his mother? It seems horrible to have all this stirred up again." After this remark counsel agreed to an adjournment to discuss the possibility of a settlement.