TESTATOR’S CAPACITY TO MAKE WILL CHALLENGED

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28620, 24 June 1958, Page 15

TESTATOR’S CAPACITY TO MAKE WILL CHALLENGED

A husband’s delusions, which developed into an insane hatred of his wife, whom he claimed had an operation to deprive him of what he considered his marital rights, were such as grossly to affect his testamentary capacity, it was alleged in the Supreme Court yesterday.

The Public Trustee was seeking probate in solemn form of the first of three wills made by Arthur Cyril Roud, a retired printer, who died in March, 1955. His estate was valued at about £3500.

Roud’s widow, Lilian Madeline Roud; their son, Geoffrey Arthur Roud; two sons of the testator’s previous marriage, Ronald and Walter Roud; and his some-time solicitor, Sydney Ranulph Dacre; were named as first defendants: Doreen Lee, the testator’s housekeeper in his later years, was named a second defendant.

The Public Trustee, as plaintiff, was represented by Mr B. McClelland; the widow and Dacre, by Mr H. W. Hunter, and with him Mr P. G. S. Penlington; Geoffrey Roud by Mr E. S. Bowie; Ronald Roud by Mr A. C. Perry; and Mrs Lee by Mr J. B. Weir. Walter Roud was not represented and did not appear.

Mr Weir said his client had taken no interest in the last will, under which she was named as sole beneficiary, and did not intend to contest the action. He was given leave to withdraw.

The Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) indicated that he would find in favour of the plaintiff, but reserved his decision so that it could be J presented in writing. Under his last will, dated September 14, 1954, Roud left his entire estate to Mrs Lee. This will revoked another, dated January 24, 1951, in which legacies of £5OO each were left to Walter and Ronald Roud, and the balance of the estate to Geoffrey Roud, the third son. Both these wills appointed the Public Trustee as trustee. The 1951 will, in turn, revoked a will, prepared by Mi Dacre, on May 25, 1945, under which Roud’s widow and their son Geoffrey were to have a life interest in the estate, the residue passing to Geoffrey’s children. It was of this first will that probate was sought. Memorandum with Will Both the 1954 and 1951 wills were vitiated because at that time, said Mr McClelland, Roud did not have testamentary capacity. His delusions did not, however, affect his capacity in other respects. Apart from his attitude towards his wife he was of sound mind. Roud and his wife lived happily until 1945 when in May, Mrs Roud required to have an operation tor

the removal of her womb, said Mr McClelland. Roud’s delusions were shpwn, he claimed, in a memorandum, left with the 1954 will, in which he accused his wife of voluntarily undergoing the operation to prevent him having normal sexual intercourse with her.

Roud printed a pamphlet concerning Dr. L. C. L. Averill, the surgeon, and the operation upon his wife, which he distributed to various people, said Mr McClelland.

In July, 1951, Roud left his wife, returned to her in December that year, and finally left in April, 1952. After the last separation Roud engaged Mrs Lee as housekeeper. Evidence of the preparation of the two later wills, and of Roud’s apparent possession of testamentary capacity, was given by officers of the Public Trust Office. Roud considered that Dr. Averill and his wife had connived against nim, said Mr Hunter. He saw fit, during this period, to indulge in extra-marital relations and started to drink heavily. Lilian Roud, the testator’s widow, gave evidence that her husband “had an affair** with a young girl who came to board at their home about 18 months after her operation. Later, when he had left home, dozens of the pamphlets he printed were thrown onto her doorstep—once she had seen him throw one.

Her husband’s allegations, in the memorandum to the 1954 will, were, quite unfounded in fact, said Mrs Roud. Medical Evidence There was “something loathsome, if not actually bestial,’’ about Roud, said Dr. Quentin Baxter, a neurologist, who said he was pestered by the testator during 1953. Roud sought treatment for his excessive sexual urges, wanted the witness to persuade his wife to have an operation which he felt would physically fit her for normal marital relations, or to obtain her committal to a mental hospital. After Mrs Roud’s recovery from the operation there was no reason why she and her husband would not have had normal sexual relations, said Dr. Averill. He found he . could not shake Roud’s fixed idea that his wife had been “altered,” and that normal relations were impossible. This was quite contrary to fact. To Mr McClelland, Dr. Averill said that at no time did Mrs Roud have cancer. The question was whether Roud’s delusions about the operation on his wife affected his testamentary capacity, said his Honour.

“There seems to me to be little doubt,” he said, after hearing counsel’s summing up. “But I had better put my decision in writing. I will therefore reserve it”