SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26026, 1 February 1950, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

PROBATE OF WILL SOUGHT

VALIDITY CHALLENGED BY RELATIVES

The case for the plaintiffs ended yesterday and three witnesses for the defence were called in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Northcroft in the claim by John Joseph Blease, a motor-driver, of Christchurch, and Iris Olive Blease, his wife, for probate of the will of George James, a retired taxi proprietor, of Christchurch, who died on December 17, 1948.

The validity of the will, made on August 19, 1947, leaving the whole estate of £2260 to Mr and Mrs Blease, is being challenged by Winifred Ellen Dixon, married woman, and Rita Ethel Hay, a spinster, both of Dunedin, and both nieces of the testator, on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity. Sir Arthur Donnelly, with him Mr P. T. Mahon, is appearing for the plaintiffs, and Mr E. J. Anderson, of Dunedin, for the defendants.

The hearing of the claim began on Monday and two witnesses gave evidence for the plaintiffs yesterday. William Barnett, a storeman-packer and formerly a taxi proprietor, said he had known James for about 20 years. James visited his house frequently in the latter part of 1947. James s mental condition was quite normal at that time. John James Chisholm, a retired taxidriver, said he had known James for about 25 years. JVitness visited James regularly at the house of the Bleases. James was mentally all right up to two months before his death. That concluded the case for the plaintiffs. Case for Defendants Mr Anderson said he would not make an opening address, and he put in the evidence of Dr. A. J. C. Hanan, taken in Dunedin. Mrs Winifred Ellen Dixon, one of the plaintiffs, said she was the elder niece of James. She first noticed James was fading about May, 1946, and she thought he must have had a stroke. She next saw him in September or October, 1946, after she had received a strangely written letter from him. She came from Duntedin to Christchurch to see James- at the home of Mrs Blease. James was not very well, and Mrs Blease told witness he had come home with £5OO in his pocket and Mr Blease had taken him back to the bank. James seemed to be a muddled man. Witness wanted her uncle to go to Dunedin with her, but he refused. Later that year she got a lettdr from Mrs Blease, saying that Mrs Blease was going to Auckland and if witness did not take her uncle he would be homeless. Witness came to Christchurch and arranged for a place where her uncle could stay for three weeks until the Christmas holidays were over.

In January, 1947, the witness took James to Dunedin by motor-car and they stayed a night at Timaru. James was then a very sick man and walked with a stick. On the morning they were leaving Timaru for Dunedin James told her to go on, as he was not going. He was afraid of the hills on the road. He was persuaded to go and sat in the front seat beside witness’s husband, who was driving. Witness sat in the back seat and kept her hands on James’s shoulders because she was terrified James, would open the car door and jump out. James stayed at her housfe in Dunedin for three and a half tnonths and his behaviour was very peculiar. He would not sleep over the basement because he was frightened he would fall through into the cellar. He kept the bedroom blinds, on the high side, down all the time he wad there because of his fear of looking out on that side. His conduct at meals was not normal. He tried to write letters, but they could not be sent. She gave James every care and he had to be looked after like a child. She never suggested to anyope that James should be committed to a mental hospital. Nothing was .further from her mind. James was unable to attend to the simplest business when he was in Dunedin.

Return to Christchurch Witness and her husband brought James back to Christchurch to the Bleases. James went to Blenheim and then returned to Christchurch. Witness came to Christchurch in July, 1947, and found suitable accommodation for'James at Riccarton. She met James and his stepbrother, James Craik, at the Christchurch railway station, and Craik took James to the home at Riccarton. The next morning James went back to the Bleases’ house. Witness went there to see him, but James would not have anything to do with her. She spoke to him and he said something about her forcing him to see a doctor. She remonstrated with him and said she would not force him to do anything. Something had been told to her uncle and he would have - nothing to do with witness. She was in Christchurch again in July, 1948. She asked for Dr. Minty’s permission to see her uncle and K IS Ju Yy a . S that Dr. Minty thought he would have no option but to commit him. Witness went to see James, but she did not see him. Mrs Blease asked her if James’s solicitor had not told her that James did not want to see her. Mrs Blease then slammed the door in her face. Witness said she told Dr. Minty she had heard that no one was allowed to see James without one of the Blease family being present. He replied: They seem to have him well policed, don’t they?” Wi/ness did not see her uncle after July, 1947. She got a telegram when he died, and she and her husband went to the funeral. Frederick William Dixon, a seed merchant, of Dunedin, and husband of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. James Craik, a retired wool classer, of Blenheim, and step-brother of James, gave supporting evidence on James’S physical and mental deterioration from 1946. The Court then adjourned until tp-day.