PROBATE OF WILL DISPUTED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21907, 7 October 1936, Page 13

PROBATE OF WILL DISPUTED

WOMAN’S ESTATE OF £77,000

LETTERS PRODUCED IN COURT

mental capacity of testatrix

Correspondence between the Christchurch and Auckland offices of the Guardian Trust and Executors’ Company of New Zealand, Ltd., relating to the actions and mental state of Elizabeth Smith, spinster, of Christchurch, the testatrix of an estate of £77,000, was the basis of a long cross-cross-examination by Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C., In the Supreme Court yesterday. The case was that in Which Olive Judge and Ivy Cookson, both of Christchurch, sought revocation of the probate of the will of Miss Smith, who died on July 9, 1935, having no brothers or sisters, and both ' ents being dead. All but LU,CM) the estate was left in trust, the in to be applied, in the discretion of the cielendants, the Guardian Trust, Cornnan v ior educational or cnaiitable pur noses The plaintiffs in the action were two of the testatrix’s n^cea. His Honour Mr Justice Northcroft presided. Messrs H. F. t Wel.ingtcni, and 1. R 1 ng.oiu appJur..a tox the P . niuT wir H. fc. Barruwciough Snd) and D.. n. L. Madam Christchurch) ior tne defendant companj. The plaintiffs claimed tnat at.the tin-e the will was executed, June o, 1034. Elizabeth Smith, then 80 years old, was not of sound mind, inemoiy, or understanding, and that she was suffering from, senile dementia. on these grounds the court was asked to rpvokp the nrobat j of the wuh j l ° pronounce against its validity, and declare it null and vok. . The case for the defence ts beinfe taken first, in accordance with ivu O'Leary's claim that the onus of upholding the will is on the defendant company.

Evidence of Doctor The first witness for the defence vp*tfir(iav was Dr. Robeit Hector, Suentin specialist in nerv °^' and mental diseases, who said he first met Miss Smith on November 18. 1933, | in the office of the defendant tom | pany/ He was asked to gee her con-1 cerning a proposed order under tht , Aged and Infirm Persons Protection j Act. With the i O - cal o m s na J!^ rt c ’ f i Guardian Trust, Mr P. H. Harris, and j a solicitor, Mr Tracy, witness had a | conversation with Miss Smith. Anti the interview, witness was jjJ! with her mental ccmdUion, and it was, arranged that he should drive ner home in order to make a closer acquaintance with her. He then formed the opinion, from the and from what he had been toid about her dealings with her estate, that snc was an easy prey for enterprisin, Sh wSn , £f^i n, n ot at that time concerned with Miss Smith’s testamentary capacity, but looking back on the interne w he would say her capacity was Quite good. There was nothin = suggest-«hy doubt about her ability to Witness l then described his next meeting with Miss Smith, on June 8, 1934, wten her will was read. Wilness took the will, and went, thr °fek it with her, clause by clause, aftei which he considered that sh« paused quite clearly what she was doing. He then witnessed the will.

Senile Dementi* Admitted In cross-examination. Mr O’J-'CEuy read to the witness a number of am:

the tramways should be run PriJarilv for the people and not toi the especial benefit of the relatively Jew tramwaymen. That has never been remembered or acted upon by the present board. It has carried on as if its idea was that the citizens should be content to be Gldeonltes. hewers of wood and drawers of water, for the tramwaymen. —Yours, etc.. REMEMBRANCE. October 0, 1936.