CHALLENGED WILL

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 50, 22 November 1930, Page 12

CHALLENGED WILL

Late Sir George Hunter NEPHEW IN BOX Hearing Adjourned TESTATOR’S MENTALITY As there was no possibility of concluding the case in which Lady Hunter is challenging the will of the late Sir George Hunter, on the ground that he was of unsound mind when he made it, for several days, Mr. Justice Reed yesterday adjourned it until December 15, as he has to preside at a sitting of the Court in Blenheim early next week. Practically all the evidence heard yesterday, called by the plaintiffs, Cyril Paul Hunter and Thomas Percy Hunter (Mr. Gray, K.C., and Mr. Matthews), two of the executors of the will, was from people who had known Sir George well, and who had visited him at various times during his illness, and at later dates. Each was asked whether he had noticed any mental deterioration in Sir George, and invariably the answer was in the negative. Replying to Mr. Watson, who with Mr. James, is appearing for Lady Hunter, the witnesses admitted that for the most part their conversations had been on subjects in which Sir George had been exceedingly interested, mostly on farming, racing, and political matters. Two of the witnesses were members ot the same political party as Sir George Hunter, Messrs. R. A. Wright, M.P., and W. H. Field,' M.P. Most of the evidence, however, was heard from sheepfarmers in the Hawke’s Bay district, who had known Sir George and employees on Sir George’s' station at Porangahau. Toward the close of the afternoon session Cyril Paul Hunter, one of the executors, went into the witness box, and his evidence and cross-examination did not conclude until after 10 p.m. When the court adjourned last evening twenty-nine witnesses had been called by the plaintiffs, and tnere are still several more to be heard. “Mentally, Quite the Same.’’ Giving evidence when the case resumed yesterday morning, Reginald Norman Blackiston, solicitor, of Dannevirke, said he knew Sir George Hunter very well and had visited him in Wellington some time in January, 1930. Sir George had then been engaged oii working out dipping dates, as well as dates for other operations on his station. Witness had discussed several subjects with Sir George, including what witness termed “Sir Joseph Ward’s millions that did not mature.” Mentally Sir George had appeared quite the same ns witness had always known him. He was quite alert, though physically he had looked rather tired. Witness’s opinion was that mentally he was able to discuss and transact any business. He thought him capable of making a will. To Mr. Watson, the counsel for Lady Hunter, witness said the greater part of his conversation with Sir George had been on fanning, polities and racing. Witness said he would have taken any business instructions from Sir George. Mr. Watson ; Knowing his age and that he had had a sever apoplectic seizure, do you think he was capable of making a will? Witness: At that time I would have taken instructions to prepare a will. Would you have called in medical advice as to his capacity?—“l suppose that would have been a natural thing.” Robert Gooseman, horse trainer, said he had worked for Sir George Hunter for 44 years, and had called on him in Wellington. Witness detailed the conversation he had had with Sir George. Strolling in Garden, John Davis Ormond, sheep farmer, of Hawke’s Bay, said he had known Sir George intimately. Witness had called on him on November 7 last year, when he had had a general conversation. Witness had thought Sir George's mind had been as fresh ns ever it was, and he was perfectly capable of transacting business. Replying to Mr. Watson, witness reiterated a statement made in cross-examina-tion by Mr. Gray that Sir George had told him he had been strolling in the garden just before witness had called. Mr. Watson: And if it is shown that at that time Sir George was incapable of strolling about a garden, it must have been pure imagination on his part?—“l am sure he said he had been strolling about tlie garden.” Station Hands’ Evidence. James Scott said ho had been employed by Sir George as a farm hand for about 30 years, and was still employed there. He 'had called on Sir George in November last, coming to Wellington on Sir George’s own invitation. Witness gave detailed accounts of various conversations he had had with Sir George on this and in subsequent interviews he had had. In reply to Mr. Watson, the witness said he had' first been asked to remember what took plage at these conversations about two weeks ago. by Mr. Dunn. jun. Samuel Marshall, station-hand at Porangahau, said he had been employed by Sir George Hunter for about 26 years. He also detailed conversations he had had with Sir George after his illness. Rational in Conversation. Archibald McNicol, managing editor of the Dannevirke “Evening News,” of which paper Sir George Hunter was chairman of directors, said he had known Sir George intimately for 20 years, and had called on him in Wellington on November 13. Sir George had had a slight defect . in his speech. Witness’s main object in calling had been to inform Sir George that he (witness) had been selected to go to London as a newspaper proprietors’ delegate, to the Empire Press Conference, and Sir George had told him to convey to the other directors his approval of the project. Sir George had discussed his illness, saying that the doctors thought he would make a recovery, though he himself thought it would be slow. Witness had been impressed with the rational way in which Sir George had discussed his own illness arid 'when witness had got back to Dannevirke he had told friends that mentally Sir George was quite all right, though physically he was frail. Counsel: Did you observe any signs of failing mentality? Witness: No, none. Do yon think he was capable of transacting business?—-“Quite.” Apart from iiis weakness he was all right?—“Yes. I don’t think any respectable man would have disparaged his mentality. Some time afterward witness had seen Sir George again, when he appeared to be a great deal better. Counsel: Did you see any signs ' of mental weakness then? Witness: No. In fact, I thought his mind was more alert than it was at times before he had the stroke. He did a great deal of work then, and sometimes you could see his brain was tired. “Looked Very Frail." Answering Mr. Watson in the afternoon, witness said ho had a good deal in common with Sir George Hunter, . who was the largest shareholder in the Dannevirke News,” . , . . . ci. Counsel: You noticed a defect in Sir George’s speech?—“Yes, a slight difficulty in articulating some words.” Did you not think he looked very ill. “He looked very frail.” . Did you expect to see him alive aiJ ,in ■ —“lf I had been going to England tlici I would not have been surprised to have heard of his death. . Answering another question, vviuzess

said Sir George had seemed to be fully convinced he would recover. A month after witness’s first interview Sir George had improved greatly, physically, and witness had not noticed any slurring in his speech. Replying to Mr. Gray, witness said he would have had no hesitation in ’sking Sir George to make a business dec.sion. „ . M.l’.’s Give Evidence.

Mr. Robert Alexander Wright, M.P., said he had known Sir George Hunter intimately since 1914, and had called . to see him in Dixon Street after the session rose on November 9, 1929, possibly two weeks after. The discussion had mainly been on politics, and Sir George had taken an intelligent part in the conversation. Witness had remarked that Sir George had looked very well. Counsel: Apart from his physical defect how did he appear to be? Witness: Mentally he appeared to ue quite normal. . Replying to Mr. Watson, witness said he would not deny it if Lady Hunter said his visit to Sir George had not taken place until after Christmas, 1929. Counsel: You made no particular observation as to Sir George’s physical or mental condition? , , , Witness: No, except that he looked better than I had expected him to be. You and Sir George had no difficulty in agreeing on the work of the past session?—“None.” You probably condemned it bell, book and candle?—“Well, we did this particular Act” (the Taxation Act). When did the party first discuss finding a successor for Sir George?— I don t know. It was never discussed by the party as a whole. Possibly it was by the committee dealing with such matters.’ When he attended the House last session'did he take any part in the discussions?—“No.” „ Witness did not know if Sir George had been attended by a nurse when he was in the House. “Sound Common Sense.” William Hughes Field, M.P., said he had known Sir George Hunter wel and had gone to see him just after Christmas, 1929. From the conversations he had had with Sir George, witness would have judged him to be capable of transacting business. . ~ .. Counsel: Did he give any indication of a desire to retire from politics? Witness: No. Counsel: You were bench-mates in the House? —“Yes.” Did he take an intelligent interest in the business of the House? —“Yes.” Witness had noticed no signs of mental deterioration in Sir George. To Mr. Watson, witness said Sir George had appeared physically frail. Witness repeated a statement made to Mr. Gray that Sir George was more a man. of sound common sense than high intellectual capacity. Counsel: Would he have been able to understand an intricate document? Witness: I don’t think he would have understood a complicated document. But he could understand simple documents and transactions? —“Yes.” When this evidence had been concluded his Honour said he did not think it was necessary that. Sir George Hunter should have understood the legal phraseology of the will, but only what the trusts were. Evidence regarding conversations had with Sir George after his illness was given by Edward Gilbertson, retired engineer, of the Patangata County Council, and the Rev. Mr. Brierly, of Napier, formerly vicar of St. Andrew’s Church at Porangahau. Both witnesses said they had noticed no signs of mental deterioratlOi'ercy Frederick Wall, sheep-farmer, of Hawke’s Bay, said he had known Sir George for 30 years, and. in company with others, had visited Sir George in February last in connection with proposed land transactions. Sir George had been quite able to carry out business transactions and witness had never noticed any signs of mental deterioration. Witness had also interviewed Sir George at a subsequent date, when, in a general discussion, Sir George had spoken as intelligently as always. Joseph Allister, station hand at Porangahau. detailed a conversation he had had with Sir George. Evidence was also heard from Ihomas Edward Welch, one of the party of men who had visited Sir George m company with Mr. Wall in April last. Appeared Reasonably Well. W. G. Hunter, sheep-farmer, of Dannevirke a cousin of Sir George Hunter s, also said that he had seen Sir George on July 31, when, as far as he could see, Sir'George had been quite all right. Cyril Paul Hunter, one of the executors of the will, detailed conversations he had had with Sir George on October 20 last year, and November 8. 9 and 10.. had mentioned a short holiday trip he proposed taking, and Sir George had professed himself much interested. In the conversations he had Sir George had appeared to be reasonably well, and witness described the slurring of speech referred to by other witnesses as something that would be likely to result from the wearing of a new’’ set of false teeth. Evidence from Rotorua Doctor. Before the court adjourned in the afternoon Mr. Watson asked leave to have the evidence of Dr. Duncan, who had attend Sir George Hunter at Rotorua, taken at that town. As soon as he had heard that Mr. Dunn did not propose calling Dr. Duncan as a witness. Mr. Watson said, he had taken immediate steps to call him as a witness. He had received a telegram from Dr. Duncan, followed by a letter, to the effect that it was impossible for him to attend the court in Wellington, and as counsel contended that evidence should be available, he asked the court to make the necessary order. It was at this stage that his Honour intimated that he would adjourn the proceedings until December 15, and Mr. Watson undertook to see that Dr. Duncan’s evidence would be available by that <la When the Court resumed in the evening, witness said, replying to further questioning, that he had been accompanied by Percy Hunter when he had visited Sir George. Counsel: In the course of conversation, how did he appear to be? ( Witness: His physical condition was improved; his mental condition was the same. Did he appear to be interested in the topics discussed? —-“Quite.” The topics had been introduced mutually, witness said. The proposed sale of the Waipukurau dairy factory had been discussed, though Sir George had not been financially interested in the concern. Witness thought he was capable of transacting business. Witness had come to Wellington on February 20 to see a dentist, and had called on Sir George, and so again on February 22. The Dannevirke show had been discussed, and Sir George had also told witness of considerable damage done at Porangahau by an earthquake. Witness had next seen Sir George in June, when, in witness’s opinion, his condition, physically, had improved, while mentally lie had 'been “quite good.” Witness had seen Sir George next in July. when, in one discussion, Sir George had told him of his “picking”_of a winner at the races and winning £25. The £5OOO Bequest. Counsel asked if witness knew that he was to he appointed one of the trustees of the will, and in reply witness Said that he had received a letter from Bethune and Hunter in October, and had assented to being appointed. He had been informed of the contents of the proposed will at the time. Counsel: And that you were to have a legacy? Witness: Yes. The £5OOO had not been included then, he added, but he was to receive £2OO a year. Witness had had s discussion with Sir George about, the will in August, when his brother and himself had pointed out the necessity for q letter to the trustees with reference to the old employees on the station. Sir George had had a big opinion of them, an opinion that was shared by the witness and his brother, and they wanted instructions as to what was to ‘be done if any of the employees became too old to work. They did not want them to be thrown out to an old men’s home. Witness had thanked Sir Geor"e when he became aware that ioUIJU had been extended to him in a codicil. Counsel: Had he promised you that before?

Witness: Yes, when I was married in 1917. What did he say? . He said he meant to give it to me in his lifetime. He said he would give Percy and me the same amount. Answering a question as to Sir George s reading, witness said that Sir George seldom, if ever, read books, but always the newspapers. He had been rather upset at an item that had appeared in a paper detailing how he had been assisted into his seat at the House. . Counsel: AVhat did you think of his illness v—“l was not very pessimistic about it.” Witness said he had heard Sir George was making a will both from Mr. Dunn and Lady Hunter. He detailed Lady Hunter’s objection to the provisions in one will on account of the double death duties entailed if she were to die, and later said that Lady Hunter had seemed keen that the Dixon Street property should be left to charity, though she had not been very definite about it. She had seemed quite pleased that there were considerable benefits to the Hunter family in the will.

Preparation of Will.

Counsel: Did Lady Hunter give you to understand that she had taken any part in the preparation of the will? Witness: Yes, I think she did. What did she say?—“l understood from what she said that she had taken a considerable part in it; she knew what was being done.” Did she say she had had any discussion with Sir George about the will?— “Yes,' she said she had had a general discussion.” Witness said that Lady Hunter had remarked that Sir George would live for a Lady Hunter and he had discussed the £5OOO in the codicil on the day Sir George’s body had been taken from Wellington, when the train was nearing Dannevirke. The subject had been introduced by Lady Hunter and she had mentioned that Sir George had promised the gift. More About the £5OOO. Replying to Mr. Watson, witness said that if the wills were upset he stood to lose £2OO a year and £5OOO in cash. Counsel: Sir George promised you the £5OOO at the time of your wedding, 13 years ago?—“Yes.” . Was the promise ever renewed during the testator’s lifetime? —“I think only once.” „ „ During that period Sir George gave big sums for patriotic purposes?—“Yes.’ So he could have given the £5OOO. to you if he had wanted to?—“I don’t think he had big sums like that on hand.” Witness explained that a number of Sir George’s patriotic gifts had been in land, long time, and that there would be more wills. , . . Counsel: Did she have any complaints other than that she thought Mr. Dunn was a little slow?—“No, I don’t think so. In reply to another question, witness said that Lady Hunter had never at any time suggested that Sir George was not fit to make a will. If she had, witness would have been most concerned. Answering another question witness said he was sure Sir George would have paid the £5OOO had witness asked him. Explaining why he had not done so, witness said he had been influenced to mention the matter to Mr. Dunn because he had been included as a trustee under the previous will, and his brother had not. He thought it was curious that he should be selected as a trustee, empowered to do the work, and yet his brother should be paid the gift promised, and he had thought that perhaps he had a right to ask Sir George. However, he had the greatest regard for Sir George, and knew that when he made a definite promise it would be fulfilled. While Sir George lived he did not mind when the payment was made but if he died then, witness thought, he might have a grievance. Counsel: Did you ask Mr. Dunn to take a favourable opportunity of mentioning the matter to Sir George? Witness: That is hardly correct. I discussed the matter with Mr. Dunn, whether it would be fair to bring it forward or just let it slide, and Mr. Dunn thought it shoudd be brought forward. But you were not prepared to discuss it with Sir George?—“l had never been brought up to ask for money, and I also Witness explained that Sir George marriage might have made some difficulty. Witness explained the Sir George’s marriage had taken place after the promise to him had been made. His Honour: I can understand anyone who has feelings of decency not wanting to approach direct, but would rather desire some other person to do it. Counsel: I can appreciate that, your Honour, but I cannot quite understand the discussion with his solicitor afterward. His Honour : I don’t know. I appreciate it. Lady Hunter’s Interest. Replying to further questions witness said he thought he had first heard of the November will from Lady Hunter. It was a fact that Lady Hunter benefited more under the previous wills than under the November will, but she wanted it altered to favour more her daughter. Counsel: She said she would be satisfied with an annuity only? Witness: Yes. Did not you and your brother approve of the alteration to the will concerning the death duties? —“Yes’.” “Preserve Estate for Betty,” Answering a question as to Mr. Dunn’s bequest, witness admitted discussing this with Lady Hunter and said that it had been agreed that it would have been a more definite term if the name Alexander Dunn had 'been mentioned instead of Bethune and Hunter. Counsel: Lady Hunter was anxious to improve the will from her daughter Betty’s point of view? Witness: I was under that impression. She said so. /Her whole attitude was to preserve the estate for Betty?—“Yes, I think it was.” Did Lady Hunter express any desire to have 300 acres of land with the house, at Porangahau for her daughter?—“Yes.” Did you think it was a good provision? —“No, I did not, but I let it pass without comment.” But you knew she was anxious to have that provision made? —“Yes.” Did you know that Sir George and Lady Hunter talked of running a lemon farm on the Porangahau estate? —“No, I did not; I would have been dead against it.” Witness said he was not quite clear as to the Dixon Street property, saying that he thought Lady Hunter wanted it either as a home for Betty or as an old men’s home. Counsel: She wanted to leave a Hunter home for her child either at Dixon Street or at Porangahau?—“l would say so.” Value of Properties. Witness was cross-examined at length as to the values of the properties in Dixon Street and Customhouse Quay, and later, in reply to a question as to whether he and his brother had not suggested that for five years there would be a substantial loss on the Porangahau station, said he had observed that the best results would be obtained from that property if everything were nut back into it for some time. Witness was also cross-examined as to the “mental alertness” of Sir George during his illness, and hesitated, for some time before answering a question as to whether Sir George had been as mentally alert after his stroke as before it. After some thought, he said: “Well, all right. I will give you vour point.” Sir George had not been so alert in October ns he had bevn before the stroke. The cross-examination concluded shortly after 10 p.m. His Honour'adjourned the court until December 15.